Sitting of 6 March 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Child Poverty
    Fiona Mactaggart: What action he is taking in co-operation with other Departments to meet the Government's objective of eliminating child poverty. [111829]
    Mr. Derek Twigg: What progress the Government are making in tackling child poverty. [111839]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We have pledged to eradicate child poverty over the next 20 years and to halve it within 10 years. Nearly 1 million children will be lifted out of poverty by the end of this Parliament as a result of measures already announced.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I congratulate the Government on their ambitious target for tackling child poverty. Does the Secretary of State agree that ending child poverty is not just a question of making more money available to families with children, but also a question of tackling poverty of opportunity and of aspiration so that children have access to learning and to a rich cultural life? What is my right hon. Friend doing with other Departments to deliver that for children in Britain today?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. What holds children back is not just the lack of income but the lack of educational opportunities and, in some cases, poor housing and other disadvantages. We are working across Government to ensure that people's opportunities are improved. My hon. Friend will be aware that, last September, the Government published a paper entitled "Opportunity for All" which set out how we are working with other Departments—particularly the Department for Education and Employment—on initiatives such as sure start, which are designed to ensure that children who are born into disadvantaged backgrounds get the help that they need, through their parents, to raise their expectations and increase the opportunities available to them.
    Mr. Twigg: I, too, welcome the Government's statement that they intend to eliminate child poverty.
    746
    That is in stark contrast to the Conservative Government, who did not recognise that such a thing as poverty existed. I welcome the fact that 13,000 families in my constituency are benefiting from the increase in child benefit, and 3,500 families will be helped by the working families tax credit. I am particularly pleased that £2.2 million will be invested in my constituency on the sure start programme, benefiting around 1,400 families. That will be important in tackling the various problems that cause poverty. Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities have an important role in the sure start programme and that it is important that they are involved—not least because many have anti-poverty strategies?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important for the Government and local authorities to work together. I am glad that he mentioned sure start. As constituency Members of Parliament, we see every day the problems that arise where young children are born into homes where not only is there not enough money, but very often nobody is in work. Those children have low expectations and they will not do as well as other children. The sure start programme is designed to ensure that children in that position get the extra help that they need from the time that they are born until they go into nursery school and primary school. The Government are committed to eradicating child poverty, and that is essential. It is not just a moral issue—it makes economic sense; something the Conservatives never realised in nearly 20 years in government.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I am sure that everyone welcomes those targets in principle, but will the Secretary of State tell us how the steady growth in means-tested benefits will help to eliminate child poverty when factors such as the working families tax credit, in combination with other taxes and benefits, leave an ever-increasing proportion of households facing marginal rates of tax and benefit withdrawal of more than 80 per cent? What sort of message is he sending to the next rising generation about helping themselves?
    Mr. Darling: The clear message that the working families tax credit sends is that work pays. The problem that we faced—the problem that the Conservative party left us—was that there were far too many households where nobody worked and where nobody had worked for a long time. It was beyond doubt that some people were in the absurd situation of finding themselves worse off as a result of going into work than they would have been on benefits. Since 1997, the Government have ensured that the barriers that people face when going into work are reduced and that work is made to pay. The working families tax credit will benefit 1.5 million families, who will be better off as a result of going into work. That makes sense in terms of getting them off the dole and into work, and it is good for the families concerned who come to accept that work is a central part of life—again, something that the previous Government did nothing about in almost 20 years.
    Mr. David Willetts: Will the Secretary of State explain briefly the distinct roles in tackling child poverty of child benefit, the working families tax credit, the child care credit, the children's tax credit, the

    747
    integrated child credit and the employment credit? How on earth does he expect an average family to understand this Heath Robinson structure? Why does he not go for the boldest reform of them all, and create a structure that families can understand?
    Mr. Darling: The one thing that all those benefits and help have in common is that the Tories opposed every one of them. As I said to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), we are determined to ensure that work pays and we want to use every lever at our disposal to achieve that end. The number of children living in poverty trebled under the previous Government, and that was because of a lack of income in the house and far too many people without work—something that we are not prepared to tolerate.
    Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State talks about using every lever at his disposal, but a report from the Government said that problems of co-ordination are becoming more acute. The Prime Minister has set up the social exclusion unit; the Chancellor has taken over benefits policy for the Budget, and a poverty tsarina is running policy on poverty from the Cabinet Office, so the most radical idea in the Labour manifesto will be dismantling the Secretary of State's Department. What does that tell us about his record?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that, during the nearly 20 years that they were in power, the Tories did nothing about the eradication of child poverty. Indeed, one of my predecessors, now Lord Moore, famously tried to prove that poverty did not exist. This Government accept that many people are excluded when they should not be, and that is why we set up the social exclusion unit to deal with problems such as homelessness. We are determined, through the Department of Social Security, the Treasury and every Department, to eradicate poverty, and all Departments are working together towards that objective. It is interesting that all that the Tories can do is sneer at those efforts to give children and other people the opportunities that the Tory Government denied them.

    Passported Benefits
    Mr. John Bercow: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the level of welfare and other passported benefits on the incentive to work. [111830]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Helping people move from welfare benefits into work is a key element of our welfare reform agenda. We are tackling the problems of the unemployment and poverty traps and ensuring that work pays. The introduction of the national minimum wage and the working families tax credit has, for the first time, guaranteed a minimum income of £200 per week for those moving off benefits. Tax and benefit reforms have also addressed the poverty trap and allowed low-income families to keep more of every pound that they earn.
    Mr. Bercow: I acknowledge the Minister's reply. What comfort can the Minister offer today to my constituent, Marguerite Day of 23 Chiltern avenue, Stone, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP17 8QZ, who has been out of work
    748
    for seven years through a back injury, who is unable to accept a part-time post as a phlebotomist at £80 a week because she would lose a string of benefits and incur hefty transport costs and to whom the Minister's standard letter of 18 January this year was of no use whatever?
    Angela Eagle: If the hon. Gentleman will write to me with the details, I will look into the case. As the Government have recognised, the important thing to remember is that individual barriers to getting back into work are precisely that, and they need to be tackled individually. That is why we are setting up the personal advisers in the ONE service, and we are trialling that service in 12 areas, including that of the hon. Gentleman. It may well be that a visit to a personal adviser could help his constituent a great deal.
    Mr. Paul Goggins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of people would rather work than claim benefits? Therefore, is she as encouraged as I am that, in Benchill, the area in my constituency that for years has had the highest proportion of families dependent on benefits, unemployment fell by 21 per cent. last year alone, youth unemployment by 30 per cent. and long-term unemployment by 43 per cent?
    Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right. People should remember that youth unemployment is down 60 per cent. since the Government came to power; long-term unemployment is down 50 per cent.; 41,000 lone parents are now in work, as are 34,000 of those who joined the new deal for the over-25s and 185,000 of the under-25s; 2,180 disabled people are on the new deal for disabled people; and more than 1,000 on the new deal for partners of the unemployed are now in jobs. What did the Conservatives do? They opposed the new deal.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I acknowledge that much has been done to provide incentives to get people off welfare and into work, but will the Minister look carefully at the recent work that has been done at the centre for analysis of social exclusion at the London school of economics in analysing some of the American experience? The Americans are a bit further down the line than we are, and it is worrying that people who are at the bottom of the pile, especially lone mothers in the American context, are worse off now than they were. Will the Minister give a categoric assurance that the other half of the adage "Work for those who can, but support for those who cannot" is equally respected, and that there will be as much support for those who genuinely cannot work as there is effort made to incentivise those who can?
    Angela Eagle: The American system is very different from the UK system. We always keep an eye on what is going on in welfare-to-work issues around the world, not only in the United States. The important thing to bear in mind is that the Government have ensured that work pays: we have introduced the working families tax credit, new child care opportunities, sure start, and we have also done much to help lone parents. We have also spent a great deal of money on increasing the premium for children in the income-related benefits. We are thereby trying to balance both sides of the equation.

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What recent representations he has received from disablement groups on incapacity benefit. [111831]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We have received a number of representations on incapacity benefit from organisations representing disabled people, principally on matters relating to measures in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999.
    Mr. Dalyell: What are the reasons for the underspend on disability benefits of £754 million, as reported by the National Audit Office?
    Mr. Bayley: The National Audit Office report's figure of £754 million represents the difference between forecast expenditure and actual expenditure. However, the number of people claiming and receiving disability living allowance has continued to go up. In the latest year for which figures are available, there was an increase of 62,000 people receiving the allowance.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister regret means-testing incapacity benefit and thereby damaging genuinely disabled people—the very vulnerable people whom the Conservative party tried to help when we were last in government?
    Mr. Bayley: The hon. Lady continues to perpetuate a myth. A means test takes regard of income and capital, and incapacity benefit has not been means-tested. We have introduced a system that takes some account of occupational pensions, for the simple reason that such pensions, when paid early on grounds of sickness, serve the same purpose as incapacity benefit.
    Mr. David Winnick: Will my hon. Friend accept that the Labour party has campaigned for disabled people over many years, through the work of people such as Lord A1f Morris and Lord Ashley? I am sure that my hon. Friend will not mind my candour, but I hope that we shall not have a repeat of what happened in Parliament over incapacity benefit last year.
    Mr. Bayley: I can reassure my hon. Friend that, over the lifetime of this Parliament, the Government's expenditure on disability benefits will have risen by £1 billion, in real terms.
    Mr. Andrew George: Notwithstanding his answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), does the Minister accept that a massive amount of incapacity benefit is not taken up? Would he accept that there is therefore no reason to go ahead with the planned, but much opposed, cuts in the benefit?
    Mr. Bayley: No, I do not accept that. Some people with an entitlement to disability living allowance do not claim it, for a variety of reasons—perhaps they do not know about the benefit, or perhaps they do not regard themselves as sufficiently disabled. We are always considering ways to ensure that the benefit is paid to those who are entitled to it. However, the hon. Gentleman
    750
    should also bear it in mind that 40 per cent. of those who claim disability living allowance do not meet the entitlement conditions. So encouraging more people to apply would simply mean that more were disappointed, and that the waiting time for people who need the benefit and who qualify for it would be even longer.

    Benefits Agency
    Mr. Syd Rapson: What steps his Department is taking to improve the ways in which the Benefits Agency communicates with the public. [111832]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We are improving the way in which we notify and explain decisions to people. We have redesigned leaflets around age groups and life events instead of benefits, making them simpler and easier to follow. We are working through one-to-one personal advisers in the new deals and the ONE service to help people take up the opportunities open to them, which is crucial to our success in tackling poverty. We are also investing in our service to pensioners, so that we can take claims and deal with queries over the telephone.
    Mr. Rapson: I thank my hon. Friend for that very good answer. However, is there any way for the Benefits Agency to use the vast network of sub-post offices to underline the Government's commitment to enabling claimants to carry on receiving their benefits through post offices? That would also allay the fears of the 20,000 people in Portsmouth who have been seriously misled by a Liberal Democrat campaign into believing that their benefits will not be paid through a post office. The campaign has succeeded only in worrying a lot of people who should not have to worry about such matters.
    Angela Eagle: People must be very careful that they are not seriously misled by Liberal Democrat campaigns. I assure the House that, even after the move to automated credit transfer, people will still be able to choose to access their cash at a post office if they want. The Post Office and the Department of Social Security have recently launched a joint poster explaining that, which should be available in post offices. I hope that it is displayed alongside the petitions.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: The Liberal Democrat's communications appear to be more effective than the Government's. Could the Minister address herself to another aspect of Government communication in respect of the current payments to assist people in meeting their mortgage costs when they are unemployed and on income support? Is she aware that many of my constituents do not believe that they have received adequate communications and explanations about why, since June last year, the rate of 6.6 per cent. that has been set by the Department has not been increased? As a consequence, many people are finding their mortgages increasingly difficult to meet and are in greater debt. Could the Department improve its communication in that respect?
    Angela Eagle: There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the availability of mortgage interest support for those who become unemployed. We are trying, with the Council

    751
    of Mortgage Lenders, to do some more work to persuade people that they need to take out mortgage interest protection for the first nine months when they are not entitled to any benefits.
    The hon. Gentleman is referring to the composite interest rates that are used to calculate this benefit. They were introduced a few years ago because of the proliferation of different mortgage interest rates. There were more than 1,000, and it was impossible to calculate them. People need to realise, when they are contemplating a mortgage, that, if they become unemployed, the composite mortgage interest rate will apply. The state will pay not what people owe on their mortgage but the standard interest rate. That is a matter of record.
    Ann Clwyd: Will my hon. Friend confirm that some 700,000 pensioners are eligible for income support, but do not claim it? We have heard for some time that the Department intends to publicise those matters, but many people in my constituency are still surprised when I tell them that they are eligible to claim. Can my hon. Friend go into more detail as to how the Government propose to bring the message home that, if people are eligible for benefits, there is no shame in claiming them?
    Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is absolutely no shame in claiming the benefits to which one is entitled. The Government will shortly be making an announcement on this very subject. I hope that she will participate in the take-up campaign when it gets going.

    Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Edward Leigh: What recent representations he has received from outside organisations about his policies for tackling organised benefit fraud. [111833]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): A number of organisations were consulted as part of the review of organised benefit fraud. They are listed in the report, which is in the Library.
    Mr. Leigh: Does the finding of the Government's Scampion report that there was insufficient information, or no interchange of information between local authorities, on benefit fraud underline the need for a single national benefits investigation agency to co-ordinate these matters and ensure that we crack down on fraud?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman makes one good point in particular. In the past, the flow of information between the Benefits Agency and local authorities was not satisfactory. We changed that when we came to office so that, by the end of this financial year, any local authority that wants it—and nearly all of them do—will have access to the Benefits Agency computer systems and the Benefits Agency will have access to council computer systems to cross-match data. Cross-checking DSS records and other state records, as well as local authority records, has already saved £150 million. So it is important that
    752
    councils and the DSS work closely together, and some people, in some parts of the country, have already seen the results.
    Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that one very useful measure to counter organised fraud would be to get every local authority not to redirect girocheques to safe addresses? Does he accept that one estimate suggests that £400 million would be saved by universalising that move? Would that not pay for a huge campaign to ensure the take-up of income support among our older pensioners? That being so, will he set a time limit for all the laggards among local authorities to sign up to that scheme within the next two months?
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend is right: I attach much importance to stopping the Post Office from redirecting mail—that is why I announced just such an initiative almost a year ago. I am glad to say that an increasing number of local authorities now operate a scheme; I am confident that all of them will do so before too long. It saves substantial sums. What is surprising is that the previous Conservative Government did nothing about the problem.
    Mr. Steve Webb: Last summer, the Government set themselves a target of a 10 per cent. fall in benefit fraud by 2002, yet the latest departmental figures show a negligible fall, described by the Secretary of State's own civil servants as not statistically significant. Will he reaffirm that target, or is this another case of the DSS talking tough and achieving little?
    Mr. Darling: Of course the Government are adhering to those targets. The hon. Gentleman should know better than most that there are several problems within the system that will take some time to remedy; for example, the computer systems that we operate will have to be replaced. In addition, the move to make direct payment of benefits into bank accounts, of which his party is critical, will save substantial sums lost in fraud. Furthermore, we have insisted that people must now establish their identity to the satisfaction of benefit officers before they can obtain benefit. That will save £1 billion during this Parliament alone—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can wave documents as much as he wants, but he must face the fact that, unlike him, we are not just talking about reducing the amount lost through fraud; we are taking concrete steps to do so by tightening up the gateways to the benefit system and making it more difficult for people to fiddle the system. If they fiddle the system, they will get caught—as a growing number of people are finding out.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend referred to establishing one's identity to the benefit officer. What is our position on the use of national identity cards in that matter? Are we still wholly opposed to it?
    Mr. Darling: As far as I am aware, no one is suggesting that we should introduce a national identity card system. There are many difficulties with that—not least the expense of setting it up. There are means to identify people at present: everyone has a national insurance number; and it is possible to ascertain people's

    753
    names and addresses. All those matters are common sense—to coin a phrase. It is curious, therefore, that the Conservatives did nothing about it during the 18 years that they were in power. Perhaps we are about to find out why.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: What does not make sense is to boast that numbers are going down based on figures that the Department described as statistically insignificant. The Secretary of State does not seem to understand what is going on. He talks about computers, but Scampion points out that much of the anti-fraud initiative is written down—it is being carried around manually. He refers to local authorities talking to the Benefits Agency but, according to Scampion, the problem is that local authorities are not talking to one another. They cannot tackle organised fraud because they are not passing on good tips. When will the right hon. Gentleman do something about fraud? When will he actually establish something? Is this not the purest example of all talk and no delivery?
    Mr. Darling: I admire the hon. Gentleman's panache. He refers to the fact that local authorities do not always give us the information we need.
    Mr. Pickles: They do not.
    Mr. Darling: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman points that out. When we telephoned Brentwood to find out why we were not receiving the information to which the Government are entitled, we were told that it was an apparent oversight by the benefits manager, who was away from the office. That is happening in his own local authority. That authority is not telling us what we need to know. Instead of asking me what is going wrong, he should ask his own council why it is not collecting and giving us the information that we need.
    Mr. Pickles: Brentwood is a Liberal Democrat council.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What steps his Department is taking to help reduce the barriers to work faced by disabled people. [111834]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): For those—[Interruption.]It is nice to see warfare break out on the Opposition Benches.
    For those on incapacity benefits, we have introduced a 52-week linking rule as well as removing restrictions on voluntary work. We have also introduced the disabled persons tax credit and, next week, we will make regulations that will remove barriers that might prevent disabled people from taking part in work trials or work placements while on benefits.
    Mr. Hoyle: I welcome the Minister's answer and the pilot schemes that have been introduced, but what plans
    754
    has he got to ensure that there will be a national scheme so that all disabled people will benefit and will be able to have support when they apply for jobs?
    Mr. Bayley: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. Under the previous Administration, people with long-term and intractable health problems or disabilities were simply shunted off unemployment benefit and the jobseeker's allowance and dumped on to incapacity benefits. With the pilot studies operating under the new deal for disabled people, we have shown that it is possible to get back to work many people who have spent a long time on incapacity benefits.
    We also know that many people on incapacity benefits want to get back to work. Because of the success of the economy under this Government, many employers want to get hold of the skills that disabled people have to offer and want to employ them. We have created 700,000 jobs since the general election and we have the lowest rate of unemployment for 20 years and a million job vacancies. That is why employers want to employ disabled people. Therefore, we are actively considering what help could be provided on a national basis under the new deal.

    Age-related Benefits
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What progress has been made in the last six months in persuading those of pensionable age to take up the minimum income guarantee and other age?related benefits in the north?west region of England. [111835]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We are committed to taking action to find more effective ways of encouraging eligible pensioners to claim their entitlement to the minimum income guarantee. That is why we have been incredibly busy in recent weeks developing a programme to encourage pensioners to take up their benefit entitlement. We will announce our plans for implementation shortly.
    Mr. Marsden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that about 4,900 pensioners in my constituency currently claim the minimum income guarantee but, on the Department's own estimates, between 2,000 and 2,500 do not? I say "do not", but we do not have regionally broken down figures. Would it not be a good idea to provide such figures? My local newspaper, The Evening Gazette in Blackpool is running a campaign to make pensioners aware of their entitlements and Age Concern has a similar campaign coming forward. However, the original promise about entitlement was made in the middle of 1999. My right hon. Friend bows to no one in his forcefulness, so will he use some of that forcefulness to get his officials off their bottoms and on to the issues before us?
    Mr. Rooker: I take my hon. Friend's point about the figures. The numbers that we use for the individuals who are not claiming come from information in the general household survey, so it is not possible to provide the detailed figures on the regional or local authority basis that he would like.
    The campaign that we shall announce shortly involves, as I have said before, a mailshot in three tranches to a targeted 2 million households, a telephone helpline and

    755
    television advertising. It will be the biggest single operation by any Government to get more money to the poorest pensioners. If we rush and get it wrong, all that we will do is build up aspirations and hopes that will be shattered. We must get it right. I sincerely regret the delay—we had hoped to have made an announcement by now—but that announcement is imminent.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: How long will it be before we get the announcement? How short is shortly? How is the right hon. Gentleman planning to persuade people on low incomes in the north-west to save under stakeholder or state second pensions when the minimum income guarantee will give them more money in their pockets with council tax and housing benefits when they come to retire?
    Mr. Rooker: I cannot go beyond the word "shortly". We are working as quickly as we can, but it is a multi-million pound Government operation. It is not a cheapskate scheme with just one press advertisement to do the job. We have got to get things right because we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of people.
    I would have hoped that the hon. Lady had learned upstairs in Committee that it is wholly wrong and misleading to compare an individual's right to a pension—whether stakeholder, second or occupational pension—with a couple's right to a means-tested benefit, and that that erroneous comparison will cause people to lose their rights. The hon. Lady is wrong to make that assertion.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are many pensioners in the north-west and elsewhere who are quite poor but who are not entitled to the minimum income guarantee and other benefits because they have a small occupational pension or a small amount of savings in the bank? Those people feel that they are missing out because they have saved. What can be done to help such pensioners?
    Mr. Rooker: The more quickly capital limits are reviewed, the better, and we are committed to doing that during this Parliament. We need to make the point that people can have up to £8,000 in savings; there is not a cut-off at £3,000, as some people think, although it is true that there is a sliding scale. The minimum income guarantee figures that we always quote are for a single person at retirement age, but the guarantee goes up at age 75 and again at 80, and can run about £6 or £7 a week ahead of the figure for the basic retirement pension. It is worth people's inquiring about the guarantee and applying for it even if they think that they may not be eligible, because they could be on the margin and hence eligible.

    Benefit Fraud
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the Government's involvement with local authorities in the detection and prevention of benefit fraud. [111838]
    Mr. Peter Brooke: If he will report on progress in tackling housing benefit fraud. [111841]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Fraud and error in housing benefit cost £800 million a year, so I am writing to local councils today to make it abundantly clear that where investigations by the benefit fraud inspectorate identify persistent failings, I will use my statutory powers to direct standards and time scales for improved performance. Too many councils are not providing the management information that we need to assess their performance, so I intend to use my powers to compel them to do so. Councils have been warned.
    Dr. Lewis: I am puzzled by that response, because was not the key recommendation of the Scampion report into organised benefit fraud that the Government should set up a single agency to investigate it? As part of our common sense revolution, the Conservatives have accepted that recommendation, but the Government have not. Why not?
    Mr. Darling: In 18 years, the last Government did absolutely nothing to stop more and more fraud creeping into the system. This Government have made every single improvement, such as making sure that money is paid securely into people's bank accounts, introducing tighter requirements on identification and on housing benefit, cross-checking DSS records, requiring local authorities to comply with Government directives and, if necessary, taking action against them if they do not. We are saving £1 billion in this Parliament alone. The hon. Gentleman's puzzlement should be directed towards his own party, which did absolutely nothing when it was in office.
    Mr. Brooke: Despite declaring an interest in the successful prosecution for housing benefit fraud of a majority party councillor on Westminster city council after detection by the council, I ask the Government whether they are prepared to contemplate rewarding local authorities and providing as much incentive for successful prevention of fraud as for detection after the event.
    Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that earlier this year we agreed to reward councils for prosecuting or preparing housing benefit fraud cases for prosecution, and it is absolutely right to do that. The problem with the previous incentives system, which the Conservatives introduced, was that it rewarded councils for allowing fraud to enter the system. We are completely driving out fraud from the system, ensuring that we get payments right first time and ensuring that councils have the right incentives so that they are rewarded when they discover fraud and then prosecute.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the effective wave of prosecutions that there has been in Newcastle upon Tyne via the partnership of the local authority, the police and the Benefits Agency? Will he acknowledge also that one of the main conclusions to be drawn from prosecutions over the past five years is that there is a great problem with the direct payment of housing benefit to landlords? That often means that the landlord has no incentive to manage the property properly and the tenants

    757
    are not even those supposed to be in the property. Will he look at the potential for abuse associated with the direct payment of housing benefit to landlords?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, we are looking at that. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are publishing a Green Paper on housing later this year. One thing that we are considering is the problem that can arise when housing benefit is paid directly into the hands of landlords. He mentioned the scheme in Newcastle, where the city council, the Benefits Agency and the police are working together. That is an excellent example of cross-agency co-operation leading to a reduction in fraud or its prevention in the first place. We want more of that throughout the country.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that nobody is in favour of defrauding the housing benefit system? Will he ask his inspectors to look at the number of claimants who are, in effect, defrauded by the inefficiency of the housing benefit service delivered by many private contractors, who are so incompetent that thousands of people either lose out on housing benefit and consequently receive eviction or arrears notices from the local authority or, rather worse, are evicted by private landlords who cannot wait any longer for housing benefit rent to be paid? In his examination of the workings of the system, will my right hon. Friend ensure that legitimate claimants receive money quickly and on time so that they can maintain their tenancies?
    Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend that anyone claiming housing benefit ought to have it calculated and paid as quickly as possible, but I must tell him that only a handful of local authorities use contractors to make such payments. I am sorry to say that there are as many mistakes in the public sector as there are in the private sector. Mistakes are not just the province of the private sector.
    I am more interested in ensuring, first, that we have a system that is far easier to administer—it is in need of overhaul and the Government are overhauling it—and secondly, that local authorities or their agents become more efficient. That is why I am writing to local authorities today to warn them that, unless they increase their effort and improve their act, they will get a direction from me requiring them to take the necessary action to run the system properly.
    Mr. David Willetts: Does the Secretary of State recall his Department's commitment on 22 February 1999 to publish the report of the housing benefit simplification and improvement project? His Department is now saying that it has no plans to publish that report. Why has he abandoned his commitment? Is it because the report would reveal the mess of housing benefit administration, and explain why there are 250,000 known cases of housing benefit fraud and 700 prosecutions?
    Incidentally, I remind the Secretary of State that his Labour election manifesto stated that there was not £800 million of housing benefit fraud—the figure that he has just given—but £2 billion. That change is significant.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that this Government, unlike the Government of whom he was
    758
    a member, are taking a number of steps not just to remove fraud from the system but to improve the administration of housing benefit. I readily agree—in fact, it is common ground across the House—that the housing benefit system needs to be improved and simplified. The Government will publish proposals later this year, so that they can be properly debated and implemented. Housing benefit should have been overhauled years ago. We are taking the decisions necessary to make it better and to cut out some of the fraud and difficulty—something that the hon. Gentleman's party never did in almost 20 years of government.

    Pensioner Incomes
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will restore the link between retirement pensions and average earnings. [111842]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): No, we are committed to raising the basic state pension at least in line with prices. We have kept the basic state pension as the foundation of pensions and maintained its real value. In addition, we have acted to meet pensioners' needs through, for example, winter fuel payments, free eye tests and, of course, from this coming November, free television licences for those aged 75 and over.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the genuine anger of many pensioners who voted Labour? Despite the specific assurance that all pensioners would be better off under Labour, they find that, even if they have saved money or made provision for their retirement, they are faced with the robbing of pension funds, the abolition of the married couples tax allowance, and the scrapping of home income plans and the widows bereavement allowance—instead of an increase.
    Although I appreciate that the Government have made some provision for people on limited incomes, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the majority of pensioners represented by the National Pensioners Convention genuinely feel that they were blatantly misled at the general election and that, if they have done something to help themselves, they will receive no help from the new Government?
    Mr. Rooker: They were not misled and they are better off under our Government—that is the plain, simple truth, as the hon. Gentleman should know. In my reply to the original question, I said that we had retained the basic state pension. I understand that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) is off to New York later this week to commit the Tories to getting rid of the basic state pension as the foundation of pensions policy in this country.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: When we do positive things for pensioners, such as introducing the winter fuel allowance and the minimum income guarantee, why do we undermine our position by restricting pensions increases to the rate of inflation during a period of low inflation—when there is an opportunity to enhance pensions—and thereby play into the hands of those who use

    759
    the same exaggerated arguments as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)? Our position is undermined by our not tying those actions together.
    Mr. Rooker: I understand the reasons behind my hon. Friend's point, but he should not dismiss the extra things the Government have been able to do precisely because we have kept inflation low. He cannot dismiss extras such as the fivefold increase in the winter fuel allowance, free television licences and free eye tests, and complain that we have only kept pensions in line with prices. We are following the commitment in our manifesto, on which we were all elected.

    Stakeholder Pensions
    Mr. Howard Flight: What the timetable will be for the introduction of the stakeholder pension. [111859]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): It is currently planned that stakeholder schemes will be available to the public from April next year and that schemes will be able to register from October this year.
    Mr. Flight: Will the Minister assure the House that that timetable will not be delayed as a result of using NIRS2 for recording purposes and other problems with the new national insurance arrangements? May I point out that there have been no new final salary schemes since the Government announced their stakeholder arrangements; and that the number of personal pension schemes has fallen? In other words, since the Government have been dithering over their stakeholder proposals, new pension provision in this country has declined significantly.
    Mr. Rooker: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. I gave an answer that, on current plans, the schemes will be available from April 2001—[Interruption.] I repeat, on current plans—on what else can I base my answer? Under current plans, we intend to introduce stakeholder schemes from April next year and company providers will be able to register from this October. As for the rest of his question, it does not apply to stakeholders; perhaps he will write to me about it.

    Pensioner Incomes
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What proposals he has to improve the income of the poorest pensioners. [111843]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The minimum income guarantee has already increased the incomes of our poorest pensioners. This year, it will increase in line with earnings, by £3.45 per week for a single pensioner and £5.35 per week for a couple. We have also given an undertaking that the minimum income guarantee will continue to rise annually in line with earnings throughout this Parliament.
    Mr. Flynn: While I acknowledge the Government's beneficial actions to help pensioners, according to
    760
    Government figures, 700,000 of the poorest pensioners are losing an average of £18 per week. Our main reason for not restoring the link between earnings and pensions was that we wanted to concentrate on the poorest pensioners. We promised to introduce the take-up scheme nearly a year ago, and it was promised again last month, in a debate in the House on 9 February. Will Ministers now give a guarantee that when we, belatedly, introduce the scheme, it will be backdated to cover those pensioners who are now losing an average £18 a week?
    Mr. Bayley: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in such matters. During the first three years of this Parliament, pensioners will have received more than £800 million more through winter fuel payments and the minimum income guarantee than they would have received had we merely restored the uprating link to earnings.
    On the minimum income guarantee, we do not know the number of people who would be eligible but are not claiming. It is probably between 400,000 and 700,000. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the very fact that there is a need to run a take-up campaign shows that take-up campaigns in the past have not succeeded. That is why we need to make sure that we have got it right, and that when we introduce our take-up campaign shortly, it works.
    Mr. David Heath: In supporting the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), may I suggest to the Minister that there is a particular problem for many of the poorest pensioners in rural areas? They have cultural problems that prevent them from seeking assistance, they have problems in gaining access to the advice that they should receive, and they are often isolated. Will he look particularly at ways of getting to those poor pensioners, so that they take up the benefits to which they are entitled?
    Mr. Bayley: I acknowledge that there are special problems facing poor people in rural areas. They tend to live in smaller groups of poorer people, often side by side with people on higher incomes, which means that those responsible for politics in poorer areas have often overlooked their needs. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that when we launch a take-up campaign, it will seek to address the needs of people who ought to be claiming a minimum income guarantee, wherever they live—in rural areas, just as in urban areas.

    Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the Government's progress in tackling benefit fraud. [111844]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are determined to combat fraud and error in the social security system. We have a comprehensive strategy to safeguard the system from the first to the final payment. For example, we are insisting that claimants produce more evidence before income support is paid, which will

    761
    save more than £1 billion over this Parliament. This comprehensive strategy will help to strengthen public confidence, and thereby encourage the public's support.
    Mr. Fabricant: How can we take that commitment seriously, when the Benefits Agency's own fraud investigation service ran out of money in September 1998, which resulted in less than half the usual number of convictions? Why have the Government abandoned the London organised fraud investigation team, when much fraud occurs in London? One is almost tempted to ask whether it was because the Government did not want the team to investigate the biggest fraud of all—Labour's selection of the London mayoral candidate.
    Mr. Rooker: Buried deep in there were some serious questions about fraud and error in the system. Although they were not asked, I shall do my best to answer them. We do have a strategy, which in some respects will be uncomfortable for right hon. and hon. Members. One aspect of it is data-matching programmes. As a constituent said to me on Friday evening, "Mr. Rooker, the computers are kissing each other." Facts are being found out because computers dealing with one benefit are being data-matched against claims for other benefits. People are being discovered who have forgotten to tell the Government about their savings or their occupational pension, while claiming income support. That can be extremely uncomfortable. We handle it as sensitively as possible, but we are determined to root it out.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Can the Minister explain why his own study shows that the proportion of people claiming income support and jobseeker's allowance who are proven absolutely or on the balance of probabilities to have defrauded the system has risen under his Government? Is that because they are soft on fraud?
    Mr. Rooker: The situation that we inherited from the right honourable character across the way was that two out of five income support claims were being paid without enough evidence. We have changed that.

    State Second Pension
    Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on his proposals for a state second pension. [111846]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The state second pension will reform SERPS to give more help to those who need it most—low earners, carers and the long-term disabled. Those earning below £9,500 a year on this year's figures will be treated as if they had earned that amount. There will be considerable extra help for moderate earners. Anyone who works throughout their working life or has periods of caring or disability will retire on an income well above the level of the minimum income guarantee.
    Mr. Luff: The Minister says that anyone who works throughout his entire working life will retire on an income above the level of the minimum income guarantee. How long will it take someone who earns less than
    762
    £9,500 a year—the new figure that the Minister announced today—to obtain enough credits to attain that income?
    Mr. Rooker: The system will assume that anyone who earns less than £9,500 is earning that sum. Much of the gain for low earners derives from that; they will obtain a low-earners boost. As long as they earn more than the lower earnings level of the national insurance system, which is around £3,500, it will be assumed that they earn £9,500. Two million carers, 2 million people with long-term disability, and between 10 and 14 million low and moderate earners will gain.
    We are considering a pension, so the accruals will take time to build up. However, on the state second pension, people who work throughout their lives will retire on an income that is above the minimum income guarantee. As I said earlier, people will be treated as individuals. Income support and the minimum income guarantee are means-tested on the basis of couples' incomes. As everyone knows, income support and minimum income guarantee levels for a couple are not twice those for a single person.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What plans he has to implement fundamental reform of housing benefit. [111847]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We intend to publish a Green Paper on housing policy later this year. It will consider housing as a whole, including the role of housing benefit.
    Mr. Swayne: When implementing the working families tax credit, what lessons did the Government try to learn from housing benefit? What is the threshold number of claimants of the working families tax credit at which the Government will cease to congratulate themselves on the success of the benefit and start to panic?
    Angela Eagle: The live case load for the working families tax credit, mixed with the remnants of family credit, is 1 million. We continue to accept claims; 1.5 million families will therefore ultimately be better off.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: How will the taxpayer be reassured by the hon. Lady's answer? A Green Paper later in the year on the general subject of housing and a letter-writing campaign by the Secretary of State about housing benefit fraud are hardly adequate measures when there were only 700 successful prosecutions for housing benefit fraud last year. That is underlined by the fact that the National Audit Office found that 25 per cent. of the councils that it visited were in on the act.
    Angela Eagle: We have done a great deal to improve the administration of housing benefit. For example, we have introduced remote access terminals, which allow local authorities to examine Benefits Agency information; we are introducing the electronic transfer of data, which will mean that 20 million fewer paper notifications of benefit changes are made—they will be made

    763
    electronically instead; and we have changed the weekly benefit saving system for anti-fraud purposes. The latter will reward local authorities that undertake prevention and prosecution.
    What did the Conservative party do? They landed us with the fragmented, complex system in the first place.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on progress in tackling fraud in the social security system, with particular reference to housing benefit. [111849]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We have already demonstrated our tough stance on tackling housing benefit fraud through a more direct interventionist approach with local authorities than the previous Government ever envisaged.
    We have targeted the benefit fraud inspectorate inspection regime where it will have most effect and made a substantial financial investment to get local authorities to operate tighter controls over the benefit system through rigorous checks on evidence and identity.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: How can the Minister say that, when more than a third of all councils have never prosecuted any benefit fraudster, and when councils in 57 local authorities have refused to name councillors or council officials who have committed fraud? I respect and welcome the Secretary of State's belated announcement that he will get in touch with councils; but will the Minister assure us that measures will be backdated at the very least and that those councillors or council officials who have committed fraud will be prosecuted?
    Angela Eagle: I can say what I said because it is true. Since we came to power we have been doing what the Conservatives should have done years ago.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: What is his Department's estimate of the percentage of people who are entitled to disability living allowance but do not claim it. [111850]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Estimates based on the 1996–97 family resources survey suggested that take-up of disability living allowance by those entitled to it ranged from 30 to 70 per cent., depending on the component. Since then, the number of people receiving DLA has continued to grow and we are also taking steps to improve take-up through increased public confidence in decisions on entitlement.
    Mr. Williams: Is it not disappointing that only about half those entitled are claiming DLA? Should not the Government consider introducing a publicity campaign, as they are for the minimum income guarantee for pensioners, to help these mainly elderly people to claim attendance allowance and the mobility and care components?
    Mr. Bayley: We want to ensure that all those entitled to benefit receive that to which they are entitled, and credit is due to the Government for increasing the number of people who receive DLA. In the past year, we increased expenditure by £363 million, having identified an additional 62,000 people who were entitled to DLA but not receiving it. They now do.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the upholder of the privileges of the House, are you concerned that the Government are increasingly unable to distinguish between the House and the "Today" programme? Dawn was accompanied by another announcement of a massive Government U-turn—it concerned their decision not to take over responsibility for asylum seekers and their dispersal from 1 April—that has serious implications for local councils. I wonder whether I have misjudged them. Have they asked you whether they can make a statement on this important issue?
Madam Speaker: I listen to the "Today" programme, but as far as I am aware the Government are not seeking to make a statement on such an issue today. I made it my business to read the Order Paper and I believe that a number of questions tabled for written answer may give a good deal of information about the subject that the right hon. Lady has raised.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I take no further points of order once I have given a ruling.
Mr. Gary Streeter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard the Secretary of State for International Development say in the House on Monday last week that money was not the issue in relation to aid for Mozambique. On Wednesday she said that co-operation between her Department and the Ministry of Defence was good. In view of the revelations
766
of the past few days—it is clear that money was indeed the issue and that the two Departments were at loggerheads—is not it clear that her statements to the House fell well short of the standards of accuracy that you rightly demand? Are you therefore planning to summon her to the Chamber to clarify precisely what went wrong so that, above all, we may be reassured that future aid efforts will not be hampered by departmental in-fighting as this one so tragically has been?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware, if he is not, that the Speaker does not have the authority to summon any Secretary of State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!] It may be a shame. Although I have a lot of responsibility and authority, I cannot do that. He seeks a statement from the right hon. Lady. If one had been forthcoming, we would have known about it from the Annunciator by 12 o'clock.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You do not have the power of summons, but you have the power to inform the House. Did the Secretary of State for Defence ask to make a statement to the House in light of the fact that British troops have quite rightly been deployed to Mozambique, where no doubt they will show their customary skill and courage, but where they will inevitably put themselves at some risk and perhaps under some threat? He properly appeared on television yesterday to explain the circumstances and to advise the public that the troops had been deployed, but is not it incumbent on him or perhaps a junior Minister to explain to the House as soon as possible what gave rise to that deployment?
Madam Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks me to inform the House; that was the origin of his question. I can inform the House that I have not been informed that any Secretary of State seeks to make a statement on any issue today.

Orders of the Day

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  [Relevant documents: The Fourteenth Report of the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1998–99 on the draft Electronic Communications Bill, HC 862, insofar as it relates to Part III of that draft Bill, and the Government's response to that part of the Report, contained in HC 199, of Session 1999–2000.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is an important Bill, and represents a significant step forward for the protection of human rights in this country. Human rights considerations have dominated its drafting. None of the law enforcement activities specified in the Bill is new. What is new is that, for the first time, the use of these techniques will be properly regulated by law and externally supervised. That will serve to ensure that law enforcement and other operations are consistent with the duties imposed on public authorities by the European convention on human rights and by the Human Rights Act 1998.
  The Bill is one of a series of measures aimed at securing a better balance between law enforcement and individual rights as set out in the convention. Over the years, these measures have included the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Security Service Act 1989, the Intelligence Services Act 1994, the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, and the Police Act 1997. In conjunction with existing legislation, the Bill will consolidate the law on the use of investigatory powers.
  But there is one difference. Much of that previous legislation has been undertaken in response to rulings by the European Court of Human Rights. In one respect—and one only—the Bill follows that trend: that is in respect of the decision of the ECHR in the Halford case, with which the Bill seeks to deal. The rest of the Bill reflects a change in the United Kingdom's stance on human rights. We have sought in the Bill to put right our existing regime in advance, without the need for individuals to resort to the courts, and then for Parliament to correct matters retrospectively.
  We are trying actively to ensure that our system protects individuals' convention rights, while recognising how vital such investigatory powers are to the protection of society as a whole. Striking the right balance in this area is an important responsibility of Government, and of the Home Office in particular. Throughout, this Bill reflects what I believe ought to be the correct balance, and we look forward to it being the subject of detailed scrutiny in Committee and during this debate.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: This is an important Bill, but does the right hon. Gentleman know that its scope is so wide that, when the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is thrown out of the Labour party, it will be an offence, punishable by two years' imprisonment, for him to read a message on his pager that was not intended for him?
  Mr. Straw: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's desire to jump on the Livingstone bandwagon, but I am not sure whether Conservative central office takes the same view. I do not begin to understand the gravamen of his question.
  768
  The Bill addresses the regulation of six investigatory powers, and it is narrow in scope and subject matter. Those powers are the interception of communications; the acquisition of communications data; intrusive surveillance; directed surveillance; the use of covert human intelligence sources; and demands for decryption. They are all powerful weapons in the armoury of law enforcement agencies. In 1998, 52 per cent. of all heroin seizures resulted directly from intelligence gained from interception. Throughout 1998, the total street value of drugs seized in that way was in excess of £185 million. That amounts to more than 10 per cent. of the estimated total spend on drugs in the UK each year. More details are included in the regulatory impact assessment that I have published alongside the Bill.
  Drug trafficking is just one example. Some of the powers underpin vital national security operations. They are also key to tackling the serious and organised criminals involved in money laundering, human trafficking, paedophilia, tobacco smuggling and other serious offences. Precisely because those powers are so vital, they have the capacity to represent a potential threat to individual privacy, so we must ensure that regulation is tight.
  The regime set out in the Bill will ensure that the regulation is compatible with the terms of the convention. Each of the six powers addressed in the Bill will set out, or will provide for subordinate legislation to set out, who—which agency—can use each technique described; for what purpose; who must authorise the use of each technique; what use can be made of certain of the material acquired; who will oversee proper use of each technique; and to which body aggrieved individuals may complain.
  Law enforcement and other public authorities will benefit from clear guidance on the precise circumstances in which they can use particular techniques. Members of the public will benefit, because the circumstances in which the powers can be used will be clear to them. They will have access to an identifiable tribunal if they believe that the powers have been abused, and they will have the reassurance that the commissioners will publish their reports to the Prime Minister on the use of the powers every year.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Why should the House be content to allow a statutory instrument to prescribe which additional bodies should be given powers under clause 6 to intercept communications? Which body not specified in the Bill does the Home Secretary think might have such a power—the Child Support Agency, perhaps, or the Government Whips Office? The possibility of adding bodies is considerable; surely such powers should be granted in primary legislation.
  Mr. Straw: Whichever body has power to seek an intercept warrant, the process for authorising the warrant will remain the same. The warrant must be authorised personally under the hand of the Secretary of State, who, in the case of domestic warrants, is almost always the Home Secretary. I did not properly understand this before I had my present job, but the process is also subject to extensive judicial scrutiny—albeit retrospectively, as I think the right hon. Gentleman has cause to know—by the interception commissioner, who, rightly, is very thorough in monitoring the issue of warrants and checking that they have been lawfully authorised, in terms of process but, above all, in terms of use of the powers.

  769
  I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, which can be discussed in more detail in Committee, but the addition of bodies would be small, and would apply only to bodies with a law enforcement function.
  Chapter I of part I deals with the interception of communications. We start from the regime established by the Interception of Communications Act 1985, and we have been faithful to many of its key tenets. Authorisation is to be at the same levels as now—in other words, by warrant of the Secretary of State. The purposes for which interception can be used will be tightly constrained, as they are now, and the safeguards relating to use of intercept material will be, if anything, even more tightly regulated and constrained than they are now.
  There are, however, some significant changes. The criminal offence of unlawful interception is extended to private telephone and telecommunications networks. I hope that all hon. Members welcome that, because it is intended to take account of the judgment in United Kingdom v. Halford, in which the European Court of Human Rights found the existing regime in this country—where interception of private networks is not regulated at all—to be deficient.
  We have established a criminal offence, and have also created a civil liability in respect of interception by a network controller. I fully accept that there may be legitimate reasons for someone controlling a network to engage in what effectively amounts to interception, but the Bill will create a civil liability in respect of employers and others who overstep the mark.
  As for the warrants themselves, we have had to make some changes to reflect the diverse nature of modern communications networks; but warrants will still specify the communications to be intercepted and the target, and will continue to be personally authorised by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Secretary of State explain two matters relating to the central proposition in the Bill? First, why was the opportunity not taken to bring all the different authorities to intercept under a common procedure, so that, instead of having nine different sets of powers and sets of authorities, we could have just one? Secondly, why was the opportunity not taken to do what many democratic countries have done, and transfer the authority power from politicians or officials to a judicial authority in the first instance?
  Mr. Straw: Let me say in answer to the first question that we are not dealing with matters that are exactly similar. There is a world of difference between the interception of someone's telephone or telecommunications system and, for example, the planting of a covert microphone, and the use of directed surveillance, which currently takes place all the time in an unregulated way. We need a regime or set of regimes for regulation that are appropriate to the sort of investigatory powers that are used. It would be absurd and impractical if, every time the police wished to use directed surveillance, they had to approach the Secretary of State or a judge for a warrant. Equally, it would be inappropriate—I do not think that it is the subject of any argument in the House—if warrants for telephone interceptions were
  770
  authorised at a lower level than they are now. Therefore, we have produced bespoke authorisation procedures that are fitted to the particular powers in the Bill.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Straw: May I first answer the other point that was raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)? That was whether we should have taken the opportunity to remove from the Secretary of State the power to grant intercept warrants from all law-enforcement agencies. I assume that he is talking also about the powers to grant intrusive surveillance warrants in respect of the intelligence agencies. That has been a long-running debate. The powers that are exercised by the Secretary of State—certainly by me and, I believe, by every one of my predecessors—have been exercised very carefully.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Of course.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says "Of course" but it is an important point to get on the record. There may not be an "of course" about it, but it happens to be the case. In addition—I greatly welcome it—the interception commissioner is someone of high judicial standing. Currently, the position is held by Lord Nolan. As I and my colleagues have witnessed, he properly scrutinises the warrants and is available for advice where there is an issue about whether an intercept application does, or does not, come within the Interception of Communications Act. I devote much time to checking applications and warrants before I sign them, and asking questions if I am not satisfied with the applications, so the system is judicially supervised. The initial decision is made by a Secretary of State.
  It is a matter of practice and convenience, but not in any sense a diminution of people's human rights, that this country has that system. It works. There has been no overwhelming argument, or no substantial argument to change it.
  If one looks at the practice in other countries, it does not necessarily follow that, just because a judicial warrant is required, there is a greater safeguard for the individual. Indeed, I suggest that, in quite a number of other countries, the fact that a judicial warrant is required lessens the protection that is offered to people because the judicial warrant acts as a fig leaf for people's human rights, and not as a serious safeguard.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend knows from previous experience, I defer to her always and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has deferred to her, too, indicating that she should intervene first.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: An unlikely story, but, as always, I am humbly aware of the kindness of my right hon. Friend in giving way. May I ask him about a point that concerns me? With the increasing use of computers as a means of alternative communications, is he certain not only that the present system will be extended in a way

  771
  that will maintain the proper procedures, but, equally, that the development of new electronic communications and their use in so many instances will be covered—or will surveillance increasingly be done using completely different methods and so be very difficult to check?
  Mr. Straw: When it comes to humility, I always defer to my hon. Friend, as she knows only too well from the time we had almost adjoining rooms in Norman Shaw North. [Interruption.] Nothing happened apart from the fact that I used occasionally to clean her shoes. I reassure her that the Bill is partly designed to take account of the significant changes in technology in the 15 years since the 1985 Act was put on to the statute book. It is also designed to ensure that not only telephone calls, but—subject to proper procedures, when appropriate—data streams can be intercepted.
  The fact is that—I shall deal with this in more detail when we discuss encryption—given the current vast scale of data traffic, which was unimagined even 15 years ago, the possibilities for law enforcement agencies to keep track of that traffic, except for very specific and targeted purposes, is very limited.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. I am certainly not expecting him to clean my shoes, but I would appreciate an answer. How and when will he address the specific concerns about regulatory costs that have been expressed by the Alliance for Electronic Business? Given the fact, which he will not dispute, that the average British small business, employing fewer than 100 people, now faces an additional annual cost of £5,000 directly as a result of the Government's regulatory policies, to what figure will that increase rise as a result of the Bill?
  Mr. Straw: I shall deal later in my speech with the burden. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the answer that I give, I shall be delighted to give way to him again.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I perhaps rewind the tape, and deal with my right hon. Friend's earlier comment on the diligence and time that he himself personally devotes to checking to ensure that the warranting system works? I believe that that comment should be an assurance to many members of the public who write to Members of Parliament on the subject, but do not understand how he goes about his functions in that sphere.
  Mr. Straw: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, he has reason to know more about the subject than most right. hon. and hon. Members possibly could. I think that all Secretaries of State have taken the responsibility very seriously indeed—and so they should, as should I. Interception is a patent invasion of individuals' privacy, and it should occur only when it is properly justified within the law and in all the circumstances.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I have to make some progress. If I have some time, I shall give way.
  772
  As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), part of the Bill is designed to ensure that the intercept regime takes proper account of technological developments. One of those developments is that people change their telephones with a frequency that is sometimes astonishing, whereas, 15 years ago, it was a simple matter of one person, one line. We have sought to take account of that fact in the Bill.
  The target of an intercept warrant will still have to be authorised by the Secretary of State. Some changes in telephone numbers—which, as I know to my cost, can happen at any time of the day or night—will be open to be authorised by senior officials at the relevant Departments. We are taking the opportunity to rationalise the time scales for renewal of warrants.
  On the issue of burdens on industry, currently, public telecommunications operators are required to ensure that their network contains a basic intercept capability. The requirement is similar to that which applies in other countries. However, the requirement does not extend to other providers of publicly available communications services, such as internet service providers or international simple resale operators. The Bill proposes that a level playing field should apply across all types of industry, and it enshrines in statute the existing principle that service providers should maintain a reasonable intercept facility.
  We are—to answer the question of the hon. Member for Buckingham—keen to minimise any additional burden on United Kingdom industry and to avoid damaging its international competitiveness. The Home Office is already engaged in detailed discussions with industry about what might constitute a reasonable interception capability for them.
  Cost apportionment between Government and industry will be addressed during detailed consultations. The starting point is the existing framework, in which responsibility for meeting the costs of reasonable intercept capability lies with the public telecommunications operators. However, the Bill recognises—there is such provision in the Bill—that it would be appropriate for the Government to make a contribution to costs that would otherwise be unreasonable for communications service providers to bear.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: The Federation of the Electronics Industry tells me that, at the moment, no one knows how to provide a reasonable intercept capability for the internet, and that it could be incredibly expensive. Has the Home Office found a way of permitting that to happen technically?
  Mr. Straw: I accept that there are complications in the techniques, but it is not impossible and a great deal of work is going on. Some parts of internet communications can be intercepted at the moment. The problem is that, under existing legislation, responsibilities apply only to public telecommunications operators. We are trying to relieve the burden which has fallen, by chance, on the large public telecommunications operators and ensure that it is properly spread.
  Mr. Bercow: Some of what the Home Secretary has said has been reassuring, but is he aware that businesses have complained frequently over the past three years that there is too little consultation and, too frequently, too little

  773
  notice of their requirement to implement new regulations? If the Home Secretary is serious about reassuring business, as I hope he is, will he guarantee that businesses will be consulted for at least three months on any proposed new regulations, and that they will be granted at least three months' notice of any legal requirement to implement new regulations?
  Mr. Straw: The concerns of business about the burden of Government regulation go back beyond May 1997—they are timeless. I happen to believe that it is almost certain that a similar regime to that proposed by the Bill would have been put in place had the Conservative party been in power now. We have consulted widely on this Bill, and I published a consultation document last year. Discussions are continuing. I will not be pinned down to a specific time frame but, so far as possible, we want to reach a consensus—it is in our interest to do so.
  What we have achieved until now in terms of making this country a safer one has been achieved significantly through the voluntary co-operation of the public telecommunications operators. We cannot sing about this too often—for obvious reasons—but the operators have performed a significant public service. On communications data—to which I shall refer in a moment—what we are doing will relieve a burden on telecommunications operators, and not increase it.
  Clauses 16 and 17 replace section 9 of the 1985 Act. The provision rules out from legal proceedings the use of intercept material. The consultation exercise last summer asked for responses on this point, and more individual comments were received about it than any other. Of those who responded—this is never conclusive, but I give the information to the House—two thirds were in favour of retaining the provision. I have considered the matter long and hard, and our provision is unusual internationally. However, I believe that we should follow the balance of opinion. It is significant that section 9—which will become clauses 16 and 17—was recently approved by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of UK v. Jasper.
  Chapter II of part I deals with the acquisition of communications data, which are normally provided to investigating bodies under a voluntary regime set up by the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the Data Protection Act 1998. This existing and loosely regulated regime is unacceptable in terms of human rights and because, in certain cases, it has led to unacceptably high demands on the public telecommunications operators.
  The Bill sets out in statute precisely what hurdles law enforcement and other agencies must overcome before they can require the data from service providers. The Bill then puts an onus on service providers to provide the information, and allows for them to be compensated—a proper statutory regime which is much to their benefit. The House will recall that, in opposition, I undertook to make this change in a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) during proceedings on the Police Act 1997.
  Part II of the Bill covers the use of intrusive surveillance, directed surveillance and covert human intelligence sources. Those are not new powers, but the provisions in this part of the Bill will put their use on a statutory basis. Part II does not create any illegality in the use of part II techniques, but it will ensure that the use of
  774
  the powers is properly regulated. Where such actions are authorised properly under the provisions of the Bill, that will be an answer to any subsequent assertion based on article 8 of the European convention that a person's privacy has been invaded without justification.
  Mr. Graham Brady: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way on that point, because a constituent has raised it with me. Will there be any way after an interception, however long ago it was, for the person whose communication was intercepted to be informed of that fact, so that they could raise the issue and make a complaint if appropriate?
  Mr. Straw: The short answer is no. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman's constituent, but I regularly have to write to individuals who face no prospect whatever of being the subject of interception laboriously to explain that fact. I also explain to constituents at my surgeries that, given the weight of the threat from international crime and terrorism, the prospect is remote that we would devote resources to intercepting their telephone calls. However, I then provide no reassurance when I say that I cannot tell them whether their telephone is the subject of intercept because otherwise others who might be the subject of intercept could come along on fishing expeditions. It is logically a difficult position to explain to individuals, and it is difficult for people to understand that they may make a complaint to the tribunal—I shall come on to the changes we shall make in respect of the tribunal—that they may be being intercepted even though it is not possible to tell them whether they are being intercepted. Because it is secret, people are bound to be suspicious, but—to repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell?Savours) and as I believed before I became Home Secretary, and have fully understood since—the powers are operated in a strong ethical and legal framework. That is as it should be.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Home Secretary clear up the concerns of serious investigative journalists and researchers that some of those regulations might hamper their ability to cover themselves when they are talking on the telephone with people whom they are investigating and wish to keep a record of the conversation? I do not mean the interception by a third party of conversations between two other parties, but the ability of researchers to cover their backs in the course of investigations.
  Mr. Straw: I am not entirely clear what the hon. Gentleman is asking. If he is asking whether journalists are routinely the subject of intercept, the answer is no. The only people subject to intercept are those who come within the terms of the Interception of Communications Act or the Bill. If he is talking about a journalist routinely recording his own telephone conversations, that is not remotely covered by the Bill, although it is a courtesy—to say the least—that if a journalist, or anybody else, is recording a telephone conversation, they should tell the person at the other end.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: They are obliged to tell.
  Mr. Straw: I believe that that is the case.

  775
  Decryption has aroused much interest. Part III of the Bill deals with demands to decrypt data. We consulted on similar provisions published as part of the draft Electronic Communications Bill last July. Encryption itself is vital to the success of the e-commerce revolution, and helps to prevent certain types of crime, such as fraud on the internet. However, encryption can also be used by criminals to frustrate law enforcement. That is happening already, and the problems will increase as the technology becomes more available.
  The new decryption power is needed to maintain the effectiveness of existing statutory powers. The limit of what we propose is assisting law enforcement agencies in reading the contents of material they have already lawfully obtained. Where an investigating agency has reasonable grounds for believing that a key exists to decrypt lawfully acquired data, the Bill will introduce a power, with proper authorisation procedures and stringent safeguards, to allow them to require the decryption of that data.
  The introduction of a new power was specifically recommended in last year's report on encryption and law enforcement by the performance and innovation unit of the Cabinet Office. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry report concluded that the power would be a useful addition to the law enforcement armoury.
  Mr. Brian White: My right hon. Friend will know that several businesses expressed unease when the Electronic Communications Bill was published that the measure would deter inward investment and e-commerce in this country. How has he tackled that problem?
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend will know that before the Bill was published, there was a suggestion, in this and other Governments, that the measure should make provision for key escrow, so that keys could be vested with safe third parties and could therefore be available.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Then the idea was dropped.
  Mr. Straw: As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) says, from a sedentary position, the idea was dropped. There is no harm in discussing an issue and then taking a different view, according to the balance of the argument. We were persuaded that key escrow could have disrupted e-commerce in this country, especially if other countries did not adopt the arrangement. We were proposing a quasi-voluntary regime, whereas France—as one might expect—was proposing a wholly dirigiste regime that would have made it compulsory in all circumstances to vest keys with a safe third party. However, even France went off the boil with regard to that proposal, and the French Government are reconsidering the matter.
  Secondly, the Government took account of almost everything that the Select Committee said, and we have strengthened the safeguards in the offences relating to a failure to comply with the notice for key disclosure under clause 48. Those measures are set out in clauses 49 and 50.
  Mr. Fabricant: I fully support the concept that, where they exist, keys should be capable of access, for instance
  776
  in relation to the transfer of funds using credit cards. However, what about when a key is not in the public domain, so to speak? The Home Secretary will know that drug dealers use their own encryption tools when they communicate with each other. What does he have to say about e-mails that are encrypted and decrypted by drug dealers? The internet service providers will not be aware of what is happening, as the messages will be only a data stream to them.
  Mr. Straw: A person who does not have possession of the key cannot be guilty of the offence. By definition, the keys are a secret confined to the people who have control of them. One half of the key—the part used by the person communicating data to a recipient—is public; by definition, the other half is private, and that is the part that interests law enforcement agencies.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Is not the remaining significant complaint about the proposals that they could penalise people who lose their encryption keys? The Bill places on such people the burden of proving either that they never had such a key in the first place, or that they are innocent. However, it offers a relatively light penalty for people who intentionally claim that they cannot find their method of decryption. Clearly, major criminals would rather accept a six-month punishment than a much more severe penalty. Would not that seem to them to be a price worth paying?
  Mr. Straw: It is worth bearing in mind that the product of interception resulting from the use of such keys cannot be adduced in evidence. People will not be able to deny material of evidential value in court, as the Bill—like the Interception of Communications Act—is based on the premise that neither prosecution nor defence can adduce the product of intercept as evidence in court. If there is concern in the House about the balance of the penalties, which can be discussed in detail in Committee, I am happy to take representations about it. As I have said before, I have never put a Bill before the House that has not been improved as a result of the parliamentary process, and I hope that I never will, because that is the essence of what Parliament is here for.
  We have had discussions about people who have lost their key. I find it slightly eccentric, although it is not impossible, that someone can lose a key that he needs to access a large amount of data. Such things happen, of course, and the person has a perfect defence if he has lost it and then forgotten it. I do not believe that a court would convict people in those circumstances if it believed them. If it did not, however, that would be a different matter. Whether the case went before a magistrates court or a Crown court, we have very high standards of justice in this country.
  I should like to deal briefly with international comparisons and the role of the commissioners and the tribunal. Law enforcement worldwide is worried about the criminal use of encryption. I have discussed this on a number of occasions with colleague Ministers of Justice and the Interior, including the United States Attorney-General, Janet Reno. The United Kingdom and the United States are both putting in place a package of measures to tackle the problem.

  777
  In European terms, we are ahead of the game in e-commerce and law enforcement legislation. Our goal is to make the United Kingdom the best and safest place in the world to do e-commerce. The industry, too, wants a secure environment in which to conduct business.
  The scheme of the Bill is aimed at trying to keep up with the advance of technology as best we can. The gloomy prognosis, though, is that whatever is done, law enforcement will take a hit over encryption. That is partly my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. Introducing the measures in part III is the least that we can do to minimise the effect of that hit. They form an important part of the package of measures that we are putting in place if we are to have any hope of dealing successfully with the threat from the criminal use of encryption.
  Part IV is in many ways the most important part of the Bill. It sets out who is to scrutinise the use of the six powers and it establishes a tribunal, which will be accessible to all. The existing commissioners for interception, the security service, intelligence services and surveillance will continue with their present roles and will add to some of them the powers in the Bill. One role of the commissioners will be to reassure Parliament and the public that the powers are being used properly. In addition, a new tribunal is established to consider complaints.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked whether we could bring together all the separate regulation regimes. I did not think that that was appropriate, but I accept the argument that we should amalgamate the current plethora of tribunals and different avenues available for complaints. That is what we are doing in the Bill. We are abolishing the specific tribunals and establishing one all-embracing tribunal to replace those functions and any others that are relevant under the Bill. It will be a serious and powerful tribunal, and will be available as redress in respect of the use of a wide number of techniques by the investigating agencies.
  The Bill sets out six conditions for the use of six law enforcement powers, used daily in the front line against some of the most serious threats to our society. We have previously regulated these powers on a piecemeal basis in response to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. In this Bill, we are anticipating, on a comprehensive basis, the requirements of human rights legislation.
  These are the principles. No doubt some of the more detailed provisions will lead to discussion here and in Committee. Meanwhile, I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.14 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: This is an important Bill, dealing with very complex matters. Given the enormous advances in technology and the possibility of its lawful and unlawful use, we fully acknowledge that the time has come to look again at updating the Interception of Communications Act 1985. We are therefore broadly supportive of the principles behind the Bill. We will not be opposing Second Reading, but that does not mean that there are not areas of fairly serious concern that we will wish to examine in considerable detail during the Bill's passage.
  The last time I told the Home Secretary that I did not oppose a Bill's Second Reading he evinced some displeasure when I chose to oppose it at further stages of
  778
  its proceedings. The fact that we support Second Reading—or that, at any rate, we do not oppose it—should not be taken as indicative that, if our concerns are not met, we shall continue to support the Bill throughout its future stages. Perhaps, as I have put that on the record, the right hon. Gentleman will not be greatly disappointed later. However, I hope that it will not be necessary to oppose the Bill; I hope that he will allow us to improve it so as to meet our concerns.
  We accept that the explosion in methods of communication has given rise to a similar explosion in new methods of committing crime. If we failed to update the legislation that we introduced in 1985, we should damage the capability of this country's law enforcement, security and intelligence services to do their job.
  However, the Bill is like the curate's egg—it is good in parts. We accept the need both to widen the power of interception to cover modern communications methods and to regulate surveillance and covert human intelligence. However, it is important that the Bill should be effective and still strike a proper balance between the needs of the crime fighter, the legitimate concern of business to avoid overweening regulation and the interest of the citizen in respecting fundamental human rights.
  In some ways, the Bill does not provide crime fighters with all that they need. For example, clause 6 deals with those persons who may apply for interception warrants. It lists the head of every major security service and provides for the Secretary of State to designate "any … other person", but one notable omission is any provision for a senior official responsible for the detection of serious benefit fraud to apply for an interception warrant. Given that such fraud is by far the most substantial crime by value committed in the United Kingdom, it seems a bit odd that no senior official at the Department of Social Security can apply for a warrant—even in the most serious cases of benefit fraud; for example, those involving international gangs.
  The powers in the Bill need strengthening to ensure that law enforcement agencies can obtain the evidence they need when dealing with serious sex offenders, drug traffickers and those involved in organised and terrorist offences by intercepting their communications and being able to break the codes that are used. I shall deal with that matter more fully when I come to the use of encrypted communications.
  One of the great successes of the past few years has been the UK's growing information technology industry. The industry realises that it is important that law enforcement agencies should be able to carry out their work and that there should be provision to allow the interception of communications.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman now has the answer to my point about social security.
  Mr. Straw: I was checking whether my recollection of the matter was correct. Recently, there was a large case in Lancashire. In most cases of serious social security fraud, the police are involved. There is no problem in the police making an application through the National

  779
  Criminal Intelligence Service—they do that through an intermediary. There would be no impediment to that system for applications in cases of serious benefit fraud.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that attempt at elucidation, but the situation remains exactly as I described it. The head of social security cannot apply for an interception warrant. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether there are cases that might not necessarily be dealt with at one remove through the police and whether there might thus be some circumstances in which that individual should be able to apply for an interception warrant.
  The Internet Services Providers Association believes that
  in order to allow enforcement agencies to carry out their work, there should be provision to allow interception of communications.
  The association is not against the Bill in principle. The Federation of the Electronics Industry has said:
  FEI does not question the objectives or underlying reasons for the proposed legislative reforms.
  The Alliance for Electronic Business has said that
  the Alliance strongly supports the Government's objective in regulating the interception and monitoring of electronic communications.
  Therefore, there appears to be general support for the principles, but that puts upon us an even greater responsibility to listen to what those bodies say about the improvements that are needed to the Bill.
  Too many times during the Bill's consultation process, the views of industry have been overlooked. A balance has to be struck between allowing law enforcement to operate—as it must and the House would expect it to—allowing industry to deliver what the Bill asks of it and avoiding over-regulation.
  Clause 12 will enable the Home Secretary to require communication services providers to have an interception capability and, by notice, to require certain technical steps to be taken to achieve that. The industry is concerned that the steps proposed by the Home Secretary may be either technically flawed or disproportionate. The technical difficulties involved should not be ignored.
  Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the practical difficulties of interception. Is she aware that up to 100 million e-mails are sent every day and that the routes that they take are quite extraordinary? If I were to e-mail her, it is quite probable that the message would go via California or Australia. What are the practical difficulties in intercepting such communications?
  Miss Widdecombe: It is precisely for that sort of highly complex operation that we need to examine carefully the provisions in the Bill.
  Mr. Fabricant: And there is the cost.
  Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend also refers to the cost and he is right to do so. Cost is a significant consideration and I shall come to it shortly.
  780
  It will not be good enough simply to have the ability to intercept data. We must have the technical capability to read it and, as the Home Secretary has acknowledged, that is something completely different. Messages on the internet are split and sent by different routes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) has just pointed out. It is also possible to hide messages in other signals. That raises technical issues about the nature and proportionality of what the Home Secretary can propose. There is a balance to be struck, therefore, between the possibility of substantial over-regulation and the practicalities of law enforcement. Through amendments that we shall table in Committee, we shall seek to try to redress that balance where we think that it has gone awry.
  Clause 13 enables the Home Secretary to contribute to the cost of providing an interception capability, but it does not give us any clue as to what the Government's approach will be. It is important that the information technology industry has proportionate technical steps to take and that the costs are not so burdensome that they kill fledgling businesses at the cutting edge of technology. The Internet Services Providers Association has said:
  if ISPs in the UK are made to carry the burden of the costs of interception, at best they will be at a disadvantage compared to their European and international competitors and at worst will be unable to operate. It does not seem that this position would help make the UK "the best place in the world for e-commerce".
  I therefore want to ask the Government three questions. Are they committed to making payments to providers so as to obtain an interception capability? If so, on what basis will payments be made? Will they at least pledge that no communications services provider will be faced with such costs that it will simply be unable to continue?
  There is also concern about over-regulation of communications data—for example, billing logs and other logs of communications traffic. Clause 21 will enable designated persons from security services, Customs and Excise and any other authority specified by the Home Secretary to obtain "communications data". Concern has been expressed by operators about the wide range of persons who will have access to that information and about the wide range of information involved.
  Modern software enables a very detailed pattern of a person's communications to be obtained, detailing every aspect of life if sufficient communications data are made available. That is a massive invasion of privacy. Although that power could be justified in a serious case, it should be carefully restricted, and the Opposition will want to table amendments in Committee to make sure that it will be. We do not think that the power should be available simply to any public authority. To give an obvious example, it would not be justified to extend such a power to local authorities investigating council tax arrears.
  There is also an important technical issue. Communications services providers could be required to build special software and hardware, and it is not at all clear what the extent or cost of that would be. Yet the penalty is a conviction for a criminal offence. The boundaries of what is proposed need to be clarified and they need to be proportionate.
  There is a great deal of controversy surrounding clauses 46 to 49. Clause 46 enables authorities to require a person to provide either the key necessary to decode an encrypted message or the information in the message in an

  781
  intelligible form. Clause 49 creates the offence of failing to comply with such a notice. Yet the nature of the offence is such that the burden of proving an innocent explanation for failure to provide the key is laid at the door of the accused; in other words, people are presumed guilty unless they can prove that they are innocent.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Is my right hon. Friend aware that approximately half the calls to the parliamentary video and data network, which controls the computers in this place, are from people who have forgotten their password, and there is a routine to get people back into the system? Surely that is one of the practical problems associated with what the Home Secretary is trying to achieve.
  Miss Widdecombe: That shows that people can forget, but I think that it is fair to imagine that where we are talking about highly complex encrypted messages, some care will have been taken to look after the key.
  The crucial point is that people will be presumed guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. That is questionable justice. The Home Secretary shakes his head, but British justice relies on people being presumed innocent until proved guilty. To put it in terms that he might prefer, the provision is probably in breach of the European convention on human rights. He might take that point seriously, if he will not take seriously the point about British justice.
  There is no defence allowed where someone might demonstrate to a court that they have shown due diligence in storing the key that is being requested via a section 46 notice. Immediately after the debate, we intend to table a new clause to replace clause 49 which would introduce such a defence.
  The offence, as drafted, does not meet the needs even of law enforcement because the penalty is modest: a maximum of two years' imprisonment. Once tightened up to allow the innocent to defend themselves, that could substantially rise. If it does not rise, a serious offender would be likely to refuse the key to encrypted information and hope that he could establish that he had either lost or forgotten it. If he failed to establish that, the relatively modest sentence would be more acceptable to him than the likely outcome if the evidence of serious wrongdoing were uncovered and led to prosecution for a more substantive offence.
  The burden of proof should be the normal one of presumed innocent until proved guilty, but the penalty should then be vastly greater, so that it does not pay to lose a key in the hope of escaping a much more serious penalty for a more serious offence.
  The Home Secretary has said that he cannot imagine an innocent person discarding the key, but the provisions will apply to anything that has happened in the past, and he will be aware that a common practice of encryption is frequent changing of the keys. The key being sought might therefore have been discarded. Under the guilty until proved innocent proposals, a person who had discarded a key might be at risk of an unsafe conviction.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: When my right hon. Friend is carefully drafting amendments, will she consider one other point which I did not hear the Home Secretary specifically address? If the fear of penalties on businesses is such that they are concerned that they might
  782
  start to lose their private key, it is likely that they will place such private keys in key escrow. If the key escrow system returns, it is possible that it will grow into one of trusted third parties and, therefore, the Home Office will be reintroducing by the back door what was abandoned in the Electronic Communications Bill. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister further assure the House that that is not the intention?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although in fairness—I do not want to do the Minister's job for him—[Interruption.] Well, I do eventually, yes; but perhaps not at this very moment. There is a distinction to be drawn between compelling a business to deposit a copy of its key, which was the original proposal, and businesses voluntarily deciding to keep copies of their key with a trusted third party. Many—certainly some—already do so for the safety of the key. Perhaps the Minister will nevertheless be able to give the assurance sought: there is no intention, either now or later, as far as he can see, of reintroducing the requirement that has been dropped.
  The draft offence needs to be amended and targeted specifically at known offenders with a background of previous wrongdoing. Evidence of previous wrongdoing should be admissible to prove guilty intention. If the burden of proving guilty knowledge were on the prosecution, miscarriages of justice would be unlikely, but if evidence of previous wrongdoing were admissible to prove guilty knowledge, the guilty would be less likely to go free. If the offence were amended on those lines, we could set a tougher maximum sentence, which would actively discourage criminals from refusing to co-operate. It will be along those lines that we shall be proposing amendments to improve that aspect. Our view is that tough justice is better than rough justice. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary has proposed rough justice and very light penalties. If that is how he wants to be known, that is fair enough.
  In many ways, the Bill is over-bureaucratic. Part IV, which deals with scrutiny, proposes that the Prime Minister should be able to appoint two new commissioners to review the performance of the Home Secretary in exercising his functions. That would involve a new interception of communications commissioner and a new covert investigations commissioner. We already have a Security Service Act commissioner, an intelligence Services Act commissioner, a chief surveillance commissioner and ordinary surveillance commissioners. None of those appears to have an independent investigatory team available to them. It seems that the Government believe that commissioning should be a growth industry. The question arises whether any of those important positions entail any real power, particularly as they lack a team of investigators to back up their role.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the right hon. Lady refresh my memory by telling me under which Government the commissioners were established? I believe that one set was established in 1989 and the other in 1994—under a Conservative Government.
  Miss Widdecombe: The point is whether we should be adding to the number, whether adding to them will make for any greater effectiveness or whether we should be finding another way of doing things.

  783
  The question also arises, therefore, of whether there are simply too many commissioners. We shall investigate in Committee whether it would be better to have one unified commission with a proper staff of investigators to provide real and effective scrutiny. I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman nodding. There we go; his conversion was very quick.
  It is easy to forget that the information technology industry is one of the United Kingdom's great success stories. Many of the technologies that criminals use were developed for very good reasons. The encryption and other secure communications techniques were developed not to assist criminals in hiding their activities, but to provide a secure commercial environment in which proper confidentiality could be maintained. There are the highest public policy reasons for ensuring that that technology is not compromised by the Bill.
  We live in a global marketplace and we should not forget that many of those working in the communications industry do not have to operate from the UK if they do not wish to do so. It is important that security services and regulators should not attempt to do more than is necessary in the interests of proper crime detection and prevention. This is the last area in which gold plating would be good idea. That brings us back to the balancing act that the Government must perform in relation to the Bill. The legislation must do what we all agree it needs to do, but it must not disadvantage the innocent or those caught in the crossfire.
  Increased regulation under the current Government is already a cause of concern; it would have been made far worse by the Electronic Communications Bill, but for the efforts of the Opposition. As the House knows, the proposals contained in part III of the Bill were, in a different form, included in the original draft of the Electronic Communications Bill and were dropped only after the strongest representations from Opposition Members and from the industry. At this point, I pay tribute to the work of the Foundation for Information Policy Research. It is important that the Home Office recognises the important principle of not over-regulating or providing disincentives.
  Many say that the Government are doomed to fail, that it will be impossible to detect the communications of serious criminals and that the innocent will be burdened with extra regulation. However, we are prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt: we shall try to improve the Bill in the belief that it can and will be made to work. Many involved in the communications industry have a choice of where they operate from, but it is strongly in the UK's interests that they remain here. The Government must keep that at the forefront of their mind when considering our amendments to their Bill.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: The interception of communications has come a long way since my dad left school in 1935 and started work as a messenger boy at the Post Office. I hope that I do not get him in trouble by telling the following story. One of his jobs was to collect letters and take them by bicycle to a special building, where they were opened; later, he would collect them for delivery on his round. Interception of communications requires far more sophisticated techniques these days.
  784
  The Bill is necessary and overdue, but I, like hon. Members on both sides, am concerned that it may well become out of date very quickly. That is one of the problems of the technological changes that confront us. It does not mean that we should not legislate, but we must recognise that we may have to revisit this subject in two, three, five or 10 years' time, depending on how fast and how far these matters advance.
  The use of interception of communications in combating drug trafficking has been mentioned, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to heroin seizures. I wish to flag up one issue that should be taken into consideration: the way in which the criminal gangs involved in drugs smuggling are changing. A disturbing article, which appeared originally in the American magazine, Mother Jones, and was reprinted in The Editor section of The Guardian on 3 March, highlights the fact that
  Law enforcement officials in Europe have suspected for years that ties existed between Kosovar rebels and Balkan drug smugglers. But since Washington enthroned the Kosovo Liberation Army in that Yugoslav province, KLA-associated drug traffickers have cemented their influence and used their new status to increase heroin trafficking and forge links with nationalist rebel groups and drug cartels.
  According to the article, German police say that Kosovar Albanians import 80 per cent. of Europe's heroin. We must take that seriously. An organised group is bringing heroin, which originates in Afghanistan, through various conduits from Asia into Europe and spreading it around the world. The article also points out the links between that group and the Colombian drug cartels.
  As incidents in many countries have shown, such groups operate through sophisticated money-laundering techniques and international communications, and use the most advanced technologies. Our organised anti-criminal activities must be equally sophisticated in order to intercept their communications, find out what they are doing and stop them bringing death and destruction to so many people in this country and throughout the world.
  Mr. White: Is my hon. Friend aware of the current debate in United States, where it is alleged that the CIA provided the keys and encryption to those groups and thereby prevented the Drug Enforcement Agency from taking action against them?
  Mr. Gapes: I was not aware of that allegation. It is extremely serious and I hope that the relevant authorities will look into it.
  Another aspect of the Bill concerns effective measures to combat terrorism. Some of us in the Chamber served on the Standing Committee that recently considered the Terrorism Bill. I shall not rerun the arguments, but I notice that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is present, and I expect that we may return to those issues.
  Several international terrorist organisations clearly use sophisticated methods in their operations, with accountants, lawyers, newspapers and front organisations. They operate globally. They plan their crimes in one country, finance them in another, carry them out in a third country, and the perpetrators often live or seek refuge in a fourth country. We therefore need effective international measures to combat such organisations. I hope that the Bill

  785
  will go some way towards supporting the vital work already undertaken by the intelligence and security organisations, the police through Europol and other bodies.
  Concern has been expressed about the Bill's impact on internet service providers. I understand the concern of those in the information technology industry when they see measures that could, in a worst case scenario, lead to increased regulation or potential costs. However, it is not right that society should not take action against criminal organisations, paedophile gangs, terrorist groups and drug smugglers who are operating using that technology.
  We must get the balance right, but it is a counsel of despair to argue that, because the internet is global and we must be at the centre of it, we should do nothing about such abuses. Constituents of mine whose children are suffering as a result of drugs, and people who themselves or whose relatives have been maimed or killed because of terrorist action will not think kindly of legislators who fail to take action leading to effective steps against the perpetrators of those crimes.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I have read the Bill carefully, and any sensible criminal can take simple measures to avoid being caught by it. Why should all the honest people have to spend literally billions of pounds—thus possibly making Britain the wrong place in which to establish businesses—simply because some criminals can use encryption?
  Mr. Gapes: The hon. Gentleman is obviously an expert in criminal activity and avoiding the effects of legislation. Perhaps he will tell us how that can be done. I do not believe that it will be that easy. I suspect that people may try to avoid being caught by the measure, as they always do, because that is the nature of the criminal or terrorist mind. However, we must update our legislation.
  One reason for updating legislation is to avoid the current position, in which all sorts of unregulated surveillance activities take place. If we do not regulate those activities, unauthorised, unregulated surveillance will occur because people regard it as necessary, but we shall lack the appropriate regulatory mechanism to bring people to account. That would be the worst of both worlds.
  I want the Minister to clarify clause 6(j), which refers to
  a person who, for the purposes of any international mutual assistance agreement, is the competent authority of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
  I interpret that to mean that it allows our Government to give authority to someone in another Government or international organisation to undertake the interception on our behalf. However, I would be grateful for some exact clarification of that phrase and of whether it has a wider application than the interpretation that I have just given.
  The Bill refers to interception of non-public networks, such as office switchboards. We are considering a complicated matter. When we started work years ago, most people had one switchboard, a couple of phone lines, and no sophisticated internal networking took place. Nowadays, however, most people work in environments where they can have conference calls, messages left on voice mails, and where all sorts of complex interrelationships exist between technologies. We must be careful that people are not inadvertently caught by the impact of the Bill through no fault of their own but because they had been used as a conduit for information
  786
  that was intercepted by someone else. I hope that the Minister will clarify the way in which the measures will work in practice in the commercial and non-public sector, as defined by the Bill.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has made a valuable point. Will the Minister clarify that financial institutions, which make a point of recording transactions that take place over the phone—I refer especially to telephone banking—will not come within the Bill's orbit?
  Mr. Gapes: That is a question for the Minister; I shall not respond to it.
  The Home Secretary said that we needed to keep up with the advance of technology as best we can. The Bill is necessary and probably overdue. However, I suspect that, in a few years' time, it will be out of date. I hope that it will not be left for too long on the statute book—that has happened to other measures—before we review it and update it if necessary. During the Bill's remaining stages, I hope that we will be able to explore some of those matters in more detail. I hope that the House will support it this afternoon.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: It is one of the little ironies of life that, on the day that one Labour Member decides to stand against another for the Labour leadership—[Interruption]—all right, not quite the leadership, but they are both standing for mayor—in London, we are debating the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. Some Labour Members may now be tempted to make the Bill as tough as they might ever dream of making it to deal with the latest developments. As we have said previously, the Bill—although complex—covers big issues. It is perfectly appropriate to examine it carefully because it takes us into areas where legislation has never gone before.
  The crucial question is: what should be the balance between the powers and rights of the state and the powers and liberties of the individual? The Home Secretary argued that the Bill would achieve a better balance, and my colleagues and I accept the proposition that if the state or state agencies are to investigate people, intercept communications and undertake surveillance, that should be regulated by law. It is accepted across the House that many activities are not currently regulated by law; they are either regulated by codes of practice or not regulated at all. As the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) said, technology is moving quickly. Mobile telephones, pagers and electronic mail have come upon us in the past few years and we need a regulatory regime. He was also right that in the next few years other forms of communication may arrive for which regulation will also be needed. It is clearly right to establish a framework of regulation and legislation and we must ensure that that which happens without legal justification is put into a context in which legal justification is required. There is no dissent around the House about that. Like the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who spoke for the Conservative party, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches will therefore vote for the Bill's Second Reading. We need a Bill and it is important that the legislation catches up with reality.
  However, our view of the Bill as a whole is similar to that of the Conservatives: changes need to be made where, we believe, the Government have the balance wrong

  787
  between the individual and the state, and we shall seek to amend the Bill. I was encouraged that the Home Secretary showed his open-mindedness—the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), has done that in other contexts—by agreeing to consider reasonable propositions reasonably and I hope that we can make improvements as a result. However, even before I listened to the right hon. Lady's speech, I had in my notes words to the effect that we must make it clear that we may not be able to support Third Reading unless improvements are made. I want to flag that up and hope that it helps the Government to realise that not only are there concerns among those on their own Benches and outside the House, but that both Opposition parties want changes to be made. To get the Bill right, we are willing to work with the Minister and each other.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): And Ken Livingstone.
  Mr. Hughes: The Minister tempts me. If the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) turned up at any of the debates on the Bill, no doubt we could work with him, too. Some of us did not stand for that particular election, not least because running a campaign out there and doing a job in the House seemed incompatible, but that is a separate debate.
  I want to flag up a warning about the Bill's dangerous provisions, as those in which we think the Government are going too far in favour of the state and against the individual are part of a worrying trend. I occasionally crossed swords with the hon. Member for Ilford, South—who is not in his place, but was a moment ago—in Committee debates on the Terrorism Bill. The Minister was also a member of the Committee. Two of my complaints were that the definition of terrorism was too wide and that making the legislation permanent was not a good idea. There are the same underlying concerns about this Bill: that the definitions are too wide, that powers given to Ministers are too great—my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to that and I shall come back to it later—and that the balance is wrong.
  The House is also debating the Freedom of Information Bill, which does not give the citizen enough powers and does not take enough powers away from the Executive. Tomorrow, we shall discuss on the Floor of the House a Bill that will take more rights away from the individual and give more powers to the authorities. I must tell Ministers and Labour Members that the Government have got the balance wrong. They were not elected to take more and more rights away from individuals and to give them to the state, but they are doing just that. These measures may have a populist and popular short-term appeal, but if they continue down this road they will increasingly lose support not only in their heartlands, but in other places where people are concerned about these issues too.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that the Bill will have to be
  788
  updated in the light of new technologies, and then say that it is so broad that it encompasses all future technological possibilities.
  Mr. Rogers: Of course the hon. Gentleman can have it both ways—he is a Liberal Democrat.
  Mr. Hughes: Had I said that, the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) may have been valid, but I did not say that. I said that we shall have to ensure that legislation encompasses the developments in technology, but the Bill is too broad because it gives the Secretary of State the power to designate, without coming back to Parliament with legislation, any body that has the right to intervene. Furthermore, definitions of the national interest in one form or another, that are not defined elsewhere in legislation, allow a wide interpretation. I did not suggest that the Bill was too wide in the way the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) implied.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and I are not persuaded by the argument for giving the Executive greater powers to interfere in the lives of individuals. The Secretary of State illustrated the point by saying that whenever he is asked whether someone has had his telephone tapped he is unable to give an answer. However, people would be less reassured to know that the decision is being made by a Minister, who is part of the Executive and in charge of the police or certain parts of the intelligence services, than they would be if it were taken by a member of the judiciary. The separation of powers is very important, not least because we do not have a written constitution.
  I disagree with the Minister. I believe that the public would be more reassured if judges, who are not part of, and are free from, the Executive, made such decisions and not Ministers, however well they may carry out their responsibilities. Although Ministers have not been criticised for abusing their powers, that does not mean that they will not face temptation and will not give into it.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald properly argued that we must get right the difficult balance between regulation and a liberal trading and commercial society. That is not easy. We want to ensure that there is maximum opportunity for global commerce, but clearly the internet, e-mail and other forms of communication allow transmission of illegal material—pornography is a good example. Such material is much more accessible now than ever before. Parents raise such concerns with us all the time. That material needs to be regulated, because people do not want their kids to be able to download it in their front room. Kids often play a double bluff with parents to find out the password and to access such material.
  The Secretary of State may tell us that he is advised that the Bill complies with the European convention on human rights. As of October this year, that will be able to be tested in the courts. Having engaged in a couple of seminars and discussions, I do not think that this country has begun to understand the impact that the human rights legislation will have on people's lives, or to realise how many court proceedings will take place in magistrates courts, county courts, Crown courts and the High Court to test that legislation. The two main issues here are the right to fair trial and the right to privacy, both of which are enshrined in the convention and tested in this Bill.

  789
  Let me make a more general point. We are living in an age in which we must ensure that the individual can resist the requests made to all of us to give information all the time, often unnecessarily. I can give a practical, not very exciting example. When someone telephones one of the statutory undertakings to pay a gas, electricity or water bill, that person is often asked for all sorts of information beyond his or her postcode. More and more information is required from those who want a loan or bank overdraft.
  The danger is that, in our present society, the information held on us is growing, while the information that we have about who is holding it diminishes in relative terms. The ability to keep up with who controls the information is a real issue in respect of the rights of the individual, not just against the public state but against private corporate society, nationally and internationally.
  The other day, I visited a prison and saw how it monitors prisoners' activities. Obviously, the issue is different in prisons, but I was struck by the detailed computerised tables enabling those in authority to track connections, conversations, links and meetings. They can listen in to telephone calls, and play back calls made a month or two earlier. The police do the same on a regular basis. I have examined some of their activities as well. They can trace telephone calls, and can tell where they are being made from and to.
  There is a huge collection of information, not all of it lawfully and properly obtained. As the Home Secretary reasonably said, the Bill is not just about discovering what is being said by intercepting communications, but about discovering what communication is taking place—who telephones whom and when they telephone, who visits whom and when they visit. That is a different issue, involving a whole different set of information—even if those concerned do not actually hear what is being said by sitting in or bugging conversations.
  I believe—as do others who have written to all of us, including the organisation Justice, and as does the data protection commissioner—that it would have been better to have two general regimes rather than nine to deal with the different kinds of intervention and interception. There are nine—arguably more, but certainly nine—regimes of control, some of which have Secretary of State authorisation: that applies to interception of communications under part I, intrusive surveillance in the context of bugging and burglary, and intelligence and armed forces surveillance. Other regimes have circuit judge authorisation, commissioner authorisation, designated persons authorisation or self-authorisation in the case of, for instance, the police.
  Although we have one tribunal, which is a good thing, we might well do better as legislators, in the interests of the citizen who wants to know what is going on, if there were only two methods of giving authority and two methods of judging.
  There are various specific questions about definition. I hope that we will look at the definition in clause 25, whereby surveillance is regarded as intrusive if it involves residential premises or private vehicles, but business places, for example, are not mentioned. The definition of what is covert in clause 25(8) has been criticised, because it does not depend on whether someone believes that a surveillance operation may be in progress. The data protection commissioner, among others, argues that it should. Clearly, there are issues of definition as to what
  790
  is a private telecommunication system and what is a public one in relation to being able to control people in the workplace. Several definition issues like these need to be resolved.
  Bigger than that are the great powers that the Bill leaves to the Secretary of State to designate other bodies to do the interception, or surveillance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed gave an example, which comes up in clauses 6, 27 and 29. The Child Support Agency, a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food inspector and all sorts of people could be designated. We should put those in the Bill and not allow as yet unknown, relatively lowly officials to be able to have what are very wide powers. It may be proper to allow an official in the middle of the night to authorise that telephone bugging can change from one number to another when someone changes their phone number, but it should not necessarily go wider than that.
  A much more worrying issue is the definition of the purpose for which one can intercept communication. I hope that we shall look at two definitions again. One is the definition of serious crime. Wider and more worrying is the definition—it comes up, for example, in clause 5(c)—that says that
  a warrant is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary … for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
  That is a very wide definition. As far as I am aware, it is unqualified elsewhere in the Bill. All sorts of things could be regarded as necessary to safeguard the economic well-being of the UK: ensuring that the stock exchange did not collapse, or that the pound was not affected. However, it could be much less significant than that.
  Mr. Rogers: Surely the hon. Gentleman will accept that that definition is in the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. It is simply an extension of that.
  Mr. Hughes: I accept that. Like the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the hon. Gentleman deals with these matters regularly. I still think that we should look at whether the definition is not too wide. As he knows, the Bill does two things: it replicates old legislation and adds new. I hope that he does not believe that, just because it is in the old Act, we should not review whether the definition is too wide.
  There are also issues to do with the tribunal and how one deals with complaints. Of course, we are in a bizarre Alice in Wonderland situation: people do not know necessarily that they are having their communications intercepted, so how can they complain about it? None the less, people do complain about that fairly regularly. I think that, without exception, complaints have not been upheld so far; none has been upheld at all. I hope that that is because interceptions have all been done scrupulously and not just that we have presumed that they have been. I give the authorities the benefit of the doubt. It may not always remain the case.
  Other countries and regimes—perfectly reasonable neighbour countries of ours—have a more open and accountable system for complaints and for registering what has happened, which allow decisions to have reasons attached to them and people to be able to see the reasons.

  791
  I should like us to look again at how citizens can at least be informed better about any complaints that they have and the adjudication on them.
  Another big point that was raised by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and that has been raised widely with us is to do with encryption and, to use shorthand—it came up in the Terrorism Bill—what is called the reversal of the burden of proof. Big-deal criminals may be more likely to remember the passwords, code or key than hon. Members, who may have more than one password at any one time. I certainly do. The password for my mobile phone is different from the one that I use to send e-mails. Indeed, we cannot help having to change our passwords because the House of Commons system changes them regularly anyway, as do other systems, to ensure that they are not kept the same for too long. Yesterday, I went to my office to deal with some correspondence and was told that my old password had expired and that I had to change it. Not surprisingly, some people forget their passwords, whereas others do not. We shall have to deal with the fact that some people, perfectly reasonably, may not be able to remember or gain access to their password or code.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall not, as other hon. Members wish to speak and the hon. Gentleman has already intervened.
  We cannot place on the accused a burden of proof as severe as that proposed in the Bill. I hope that we shall change the provision, and create a much more reasonable system governing the interception of encrypted material and the application of the balance of proof.
  We should also address some more minor issues in the legislation, such as the failure to provide for privileged material. There are also some practical difficulties, such as how the Bill distinguishes between monitoring material and monitoring the contents of material. Another problem is the Bill's provision that interception would be lawful if only one of two communicating parties consented to it. One party's consent should not be sufficient to constitute a valid interception.
  For most of those for whom we legislate, the Bill, at least superficially, seems neither relevant nor interesting. However, it is as important as anything that we do in this place, and we must get it right. I hope that we shall be able to adjust the balance that is struck in the Bill in favour of the citizen and against the state. I also hope that, by collaborative effort, we shall be able to improve the Bill, because it certainly needs to be improved.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I should like briefly to deal with chapter II, clauses 20 to 24, of the Bill. My objective is an assurance that the Bill will provide for proper safeguards for the privacy of individuals. I am concerned that, currently, the Bill seems to be deficient in providing for them.
  The White Paper entitled "Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom", Command Paper 4368, was published in the summer of 1998. In Chapter 10, on the
  792
  provision of communications data to other bodies, the Government state:
  the analysis of communications data can provide much information about the way in which people live their lives
  and that access by the authorities to such data can provide valuable intelligence. However, the White Paper also recognises—and I agree—that
  there is a balance to be struck between the privacy of the individual and the needs of society as a whole to be protected from crime.
  The White Paper adds that access to communications data—for example, which telephone numbers have been called, for how long, and when they were called—will be subject to a code of practice. However, I note that in clauses 62 and 63 of the Bill, on codes of practice, there is no mention of involving the data protection commissioner. Some observers who are less charitable than I am might therefore draw the conclusion that the Government's intention is not to refer the code to the official who is tasked to protect individual privacy.
  Will the Minister give a commitment that the code of practice will be approved only after full consultation with the data protection commissioner and that the DPC's recommendations will be included in the code? Will he also give a commitment that when a recommendation is not included in the code, the Government will give a full explanation on each detailed point?
  In the White Paper, the Government propose that access will be legitimised in dealing with
  the prevention or detection of crime; … the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; … the interests of national security; … the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom; … the urgent prevention of injury or damage to health; and … the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature.
  Those factors of legitimation find expression in clause 21. I should like to focus on the last factor, on the collection of taxes.
  In reply to a parliamentary question on the application of section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998, I was told that
  the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature
  meant that the phrase is
  likely to include national insurance contributions and the council tax but not fines.—[Official Report, 8 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 262W.]
  It therefore follows that the "balance to be struck" in the Bill includes the possibility of the disclosure of communications data, if properly authorised, for purposes such as collecting national insurance contributions or road traffic tax. Given that these taxes are, at most, a few pounds a week—less than the cost of a cappuccino per day—some might find this wide-ranging power to be a disproportionate use of state power. There seems to have been a loss of balance here, and I hope that the Minister will explain that.
  Do the Government need to modify the non-disclosure provisions in the Data Protection Act? For example, suppose the police could obtain communications or personal data about an individual. Is it the Minister's intention that such personal data could be communicated to local authorities for the collection of council tax under section 29 of the Bill, should the police decide to volunteer such data—perhaps even if the police were asked to do so by council officials? I would like the Minister to consider this matter and, if appropriate,

  793
  write to me about it. I am not convinced that the collection of run-of-the-mill bills is a suitable justification for phone tapping, e-mail tapping and the general interception of communications. Again, I hope that the Minister will provide an explanation.
  The major change proposed by the Bill is one of compulsion. Most disclosure categories identified in clause 21—for example, crime prevention—can already occur legitimately under the Data Protection Act without the need for new legislation. The only difference is that, under the Act, disclosures are legitimised on a case-by-case basis where the data controller—the telecommunications company—has to be satisfied with respect to the conditions. The controller always has the option to refuse to disclose.
  Under the Bill, the data controller has no choice but to disclose if an official or officer claims that the demand for the personal data is justified under the criteria outlined in the Bill. In addition, it is not clear whether disclosures could be wider than the case-by-case disclosure of the Data Protection Act. For instance, instead of a disclosure relating to specific individuals, the provision could permit the disclosure of a database, so that the authorities could then select what might be useful.
  Will the Minister state that requests will not relate to whole databases of information? Will requests be limited to case-by-case issues where the demand for information is limited to simple, precise circumstances? How will Minister stop these clauses being used for fishing expeditions, which would invariably breach privacy? I request clear answers to those questions before the Bill becomes law.
  The Government have not yet presented evidence that the current voluntary arrangements under the Data Protection Act have failed, and that compulsion is therefore necessary. I ask the Minister a simple question—have some telecommunications operators not co-operated with the police and other authorities, if asked? Will the Minister provide the evidence that the current voluntary arrangements have failed and that compulsion is needed? If he cannot, why is this change being made?
  On warrant signing, the latest report into the operation of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, Command Paper 4364, shows that, in the last full year of the previous Conservative Administration—under the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—1,073 intercept warrants were signed. By contrast, in the first year of this Government, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary presided over an increase of more than 50 per cent., and 1,646 warrants were signed. That is between six and seven a day. We need an explanation, if only to reassure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend is not suffering from repetitive strain injury.
  We have an intelligence services commissioner, a security service commissioner, a parliamentary commissioner, a Police Complaints Authority and a data protection commissioner—the last two have expressed an interest in national security and policing issues. Now, two more commissioners are proposed by the Bill. In the House, national security issues are in the remit of the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Intelligence and Security Committee established by the House. However,
  794
  are any of them performing a proper scrutiny role, or are they merely rubber stamps in approving the security services' activities?
  Mr. Rogers: I wish to correct one point made by my hon. Friend. There will be only one extra commissioner under the Bill, because there is already an interception commissioner.
  Mr. Cohen: That was not the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who referred directly to two commissioners. Perhaps the Minister will also clear up that point. In any case, there is still a proliferation of such commissioners and my point is whether any of them will perform a proper scrutiny role.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that my hon. Friend has great confidence in Lord Nolan.
  Mr. Cohen: It is not a matter of the individuals, but the powers that they have and the systems that are in place. I have much confidence in the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee—my hon. Friend is one—but I am still not especially happy with the outcome of their reports, which have not had the level of scrutiny that I would have liked to have seen from such a committee.
  Mr. Heald: Is the hon. Gentleman's memory the same as mine—that the Intelligence and Security Committee has recently employed staff so that it can be more proactive? Does he agree that something along those lines for the commissioner would also be a good idea?
  Mr. Cohen: That would be welcome.
  I would like to see the whole system streamlined and given teeth and a degree of independence, so that it can give proper scrutiny. Does the system see only what the security services want it to see? Judging by the lack of critical reports, the security services seem to be perfect model organisations. We all know that that is not so. Until we get the scrutiny arrangements right, more legal powers for the security services to do what they like do not seem to be appropriate. Will any of the commissioners be given teeth for their powers of scrutiny?
  The public want reassurance that the agencies that are given wide-ranging powers—which, I readily acknowledge, are often necessary—will not abuse those powers. However, the responsibilities of those who act as public watchdogs are spread thinly across an increasing number of organisations. Although the various commissioners probably try their hardest to wield their limited powers, the diverse regulatory structure weakens the protection afforded to individuals.
  Will the Government ensure that the commissioners are at least under a statutory duty to communicate with each other to determine who has responsibility for investigating a complaint? I believe that much more fundamental change is necessary to ensure proper investigation of all complaints and to keep the short-cutting elements of the security services in check. I shall monitor the progress of the Bill in Committee and, if necessary, table suitable amendments on Report.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I am grateful for the chance to speak in a Home Office debate. It is not something that I have done often, but it is obviously an enlivening experience that I shall wish to repeat. My reason for doing so is that there has been a deft transfer of parts of the Bill from the Department of Trade and Industry, in which I was once a Minister, to the Home Office. In fact, the transfer is probably appropriate.
  In March 1997, I issued a consultation document on some of the issues relating to the problems of encryption, and how the security services and the police would get access to decrypted plain text. That created a furore which, at the time, I disputed, but—as I said in debate on the Electronic Communications Bill—I have since recanted. It was clearly not appropriate to adopt a statutory trusted third-party system, with a key escrow structure. The Government have been right to listen to industry's demands and introduce this Bill.
  The difficulty acknowledged by several hon. Members so far is that the matter is hugely complicated. Although I do not agree with everything that he said, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) dealt perceptively with the human rights and individual liberty aspects of the Bill. I shall therefore focus on matters that I used to understand when I was a Minister.
  The technology has progressed apace. There is now a proliferation of communications service providers, and they can communicate in a wide variety of ways. The old way used to be by fixed-link telephony. I hope that the Minister will tell the House whether some of the restrictions placed on the old BT-Mercury duopoly that operated until 1991 still apply. Is it still a requirement that the relevant companies' chairmen or chief executives must be British? I remember having to deal with the consequences of that requirement when there was a prospect of an American coming to take charge of Cable and Wireless. I had to ensure that the chairman remained British.
  Those idiosyncrasies had a purpose at the time. The House understood that they were important, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, will confirm. However, they have been well and truly bypassed. I recall signing 150 licences for international telecommunications, and hundreds of others for resale purposes. A multiplicity of companies have entered the sector. Some are small, some large, and some are subsidiaries of other companies. The result is that the old way of doing things, by gentleman's agreement almost, has long since gone.
  I mentioned the wide variety of service delivery methods. As well as fixed-link telephony, wireless and mobile communications are also commonplace now. There will soon be fixed-link wireless telephony systems, and cable is increasingly taking over telephone and television transmission. It shows how long it takes to realise a good idea that today just happens to be the day of the auctions for the third-generation universal mobile telephone system, as I structured and devised that auction system in 1996. It is good to see one's baby born, but the process is elephantine.
  Mr. White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the former Conservative Front-Bench spokesman on trade and
  796
  industry matters, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), claimed that the measure to which the hon. Gentleman referred should never have got past the civil servants, and that it was the worst piece of legislation that he had ever seen?
  Mr. Taylor: I cannot claim always to have given birth to beautiful babies, but the parliamentary draftsman must have got in the way of a brilliant idea.
  The process is exciting, but it has taken time because of the need to achieve international standards. I do not want to get sidetracked by the specifics of the technology, but the important point is that full multi-media access will be available to users of mobile phones. That will cause problems for the services that are required to carry out interception.
  The industry is international. The Bill contains provisions to determine where telecommunications services are located, and whether a service is known to be delivered from outside this country. However, those technical points can be revisited in Committee if necessary, and I believe that some points at least are worthy of clarification.
  The state has an interest in protecting its citizens from criminals and transactions that are designed to undermine the legal framework. These matters can also be extended to terrorism, where it is important that the Government have powers to intercept on clearly stated grounds. The Bill will need to be evaluated carefully in Committee, but the process of stating clearly the terms on which a particular interception can be made should be set out. That is right and proper.
  Part III of the Bill deals with the investigation of electronic data protected by encryption. Bearing in mind that the companies involved in the industry are very varied, my concern is that the proportionality of the burden placed on them is openly discussed and understood. Unless it is, there will be considerable industry opposition. There is no doubt that companies that have moved into this sector have not taken this into account. They may not have budgeted for it, or understood some of the technological changes that must be taken on board if they are to conform to these provisions.
  It will be important to deal in Committee with matters on which I am sure the Home Office has consulted, but to which I have heard reactions from the industry. With regard to previous drafts of the Electronic Communications Bill, there were concerns in the banking and financial communities, which operate in the global market, about who was being given the powers to request the disclosure of keys. This Bill refers to any person with appropriate permission. I am not a lawyer, and I am sure that lawyers will have a field day in considering these matters. It is essential that the companies that are subject to these laws understand who they will be giving their private keys to because of the need to protect their confidentiality and commercial-in-confidence criteria. Are those fully understood by the people who will be asking to have private keys and decryption provided? I would be happier if the Home Office were more explicit in expressing its understanding of these matters. Perhaps someone in the Department of Trade and Industry, as I was, understands the importance of subjects such as commercial-in-confidence. I would be grateful if the Minister were more open about it.

  797
  The Home Secretary had an interesting exchange earlier about whether he could tell anyone that his telephone was being tapped. I quite understand his answer. Nevertheless, when it comes to confidence in the world of global commerce, it is important to know whether encryption has been entered into and looked at, and whether the private key has been sourced. The inability to tamper with a system is vital, as is confidence that, once encrypted, it is safe and not likely to lead to any commercial loss of security. The integrity of private keys must not be unreasonably jeopardised. If they are, companies will have to consider factors such as the need for global key revocation and change, which will be costly. Those factors are in addition to the existing cost element.
  The Home Office stated that it might contribute to the costs of interception, heavily underlining the word "might". I am not quoting exactly from the Bill, but I am sure that the Minister knows what I am saying. There is no obligation for the Government to pay up. If those matters are left unclear during further discussions on the Bill, some companies will decide to locate offshore under regimes with less intrusive security measures.
  Other hon. Members have put questions about definitions. In clause 52, a definition of "key" is provided that may be a little too vague for comfort. It states that
  "key", in relation to any electronic data, means any key, code, password, algorithm or other data the use of which—
  and so on. That seems to be a pretty general definition, and unless it is tightened up it will cause considerable problems.
  There are other problems of definition in the clause—for example, in subsection (4) reference is made to "intelligible" and to something
  being put into an intelligible form.
  That provision needs to be examined closely—although not necessarily redrafted—to test the full meaning so that people who may be subject to it know what they are being asked to do.
  At the beginning of my speech, I should have mentioned that I have various technology interests outside the House, and they are declared in the Register of Members' Interests. Although I do not think that they are relevant to the debate, I should have taken the precaution of declaring them at the beginning. However, my interests do enable me to understand that Bills such as this need wide public discussion. We have visited the human rights difficulties on several occasions, in respect of terrorism legislation and many other matters. Such debates are in the normal realm of our proceedings in the Chamber. However, some of the technological problems will be difficult to grasp—for example, because of the way in which companies increasingly sift their own data through test marketing or the use of cookies in a system to find out which data are being used and how.
  We must keep such matters separate from the Bill. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made it clear that there are large distinctions between a private and a public telephone system. However, private telephone systems can now be global; they do not exist merely inside an organisation but within a building, where new technological breakthroughs such as Bluetooth mean that almost everything connects with everything else. Currently, it is virtually possible not only to communicate between one system and another within a building, but to do so globally through intranets and private network systems.
  798
  There will be problems if the Bill catches people who are doing things in a corporate environment that they had not realised would be subject to the scrutiny proposed by the Government. Industry needs to understand fully what the Government intend. As one would expect, the Government's intentions are fairly openly declared in the Bill. Nevertheless, the purpose behind them sometimes needs better explanation.
  It is vital that the cost elements and the burdens on individuals are properly understood. When I intervened during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), my purpose was to obtain reassurance from the Minister that the attempt to make the penalties as draconian as possible would not mean that almost every company would want to ensure that it placed its private keys with some trusted third party, so that are forced back to a key escrow system. I do not think that the Minister intends to do that, but I should like clarification on that point.
  Such matters should be properly scrutinised in Committee. I wish the Bill well on Second Reading.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Tom King: The House is familiar with the considerable technical and ministerial experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) has in this subject. He raised serious issues that our consideration of the Bill will need to address.
  I am the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which the House charges with responsibility for the intelligence agencies. The Bill is of direct interest to the agencies and to the Committee because it deals with several matters that go to the heart of their activities. Other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), referred to the knowledge that I and members of my Committee have in this subject and the Committee suggested that I should intervene in the debate to make certain comments about the Bill. In doing that, I do not wish to frustrate other members of the Committee who wish to take part in it.
  The Committee is familiar with the challenges that the intelligence agencies face with issues of national security. We are aware of the threats that we face from different terrorist organisations and the technological skills that are available to them. Some of those skills enable them to avoid more conventional methods of surveillance and interception, so the issues raised by the Bill are important.
  The Committee would be the first to say that our familiarity with the gravity of the threats to our national security and from serious organised crime does not in any way breed contempt for the need to strike a proper balance. Human rights and the proper protection of the privacy of the individual are important considerations. It is a particular duty of members of the Committee to take account of that balance because we are privy to information on activities and threats that cannot be made available to hon. Members and to the wider public. Sometimes those threats are referred to in lurid and anecdotal terms by those who seek to justify legislation in one form or another, so the Committee has a particular responsibility to be sensitive to the need to protect human rights. We must examine seriously whether the balance is being maintained, how great the threats are and how far the Government and Parliament should go to ensure that proper protections exist.

  799
  The word "balance" has been used in every speech in the debate. We must take account of that in the procedures that are adapted to the new and major challenges that we face. It is a time of massive technological change and questions have been asked whether interception, in its traditional form, is possible for the new means of communication that are available.
  Private networks are often referred to as though they are head office or internal telephone systems. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton made the interesting point that such networks can operate globally. The development of so many systems and providers presents a major challenge in how we approach interception.
  My hon. Friend pointed out—I did not know this—that the chairmen of British Telecommunications and of Cable and Wireless once had to be British citizens. I doubt whether anyone, even the Minister, knows the nationality of the chairmen of the various companies that now provide communications networks in this country. Perhaps between now and the wind-up speeches we should try to establish all their different nationalities.
  If we are to have different providers, all of whom have to provide an intercept capability, there is not only a question about the cost of that provision, but a great sensitivity about the fact that interception is even taking place. From my experience in previous incarnations, I know of the serious concerns about the security of information, and from my time in Northern Ireland, I know of the sensitivity that exists about what interceptions are taking place.
  We are to have a host of different providers of different nationalities. It is difficult to identify where some companies are based, where their head office is or what legislation they are covered by. Those issues will need to be examined carefully in Committee and we shall have to consider how workable the legislation is. We are no longer dealing only with good old BT. The establishment of Mercury seemed, at the time, a radical innovation, but now we have a host of other providers.
  The second issue, which the Intelligence and Security Committee has considered and which the Home Secretary referred to, is whether we should have judicial or executive authority for warrants. The issue by a Secretary of State of warrants for interception or covert intrusion legalises illegal acts, because without a warrant such interception is illegal, as the Bill makes clear. This country has been under fire for a considerable time for not placing the issue of such warrants on a judicial basis.
  I hope that this remark will not seem too offensive to some people, but I am conscious that in some countries it would be extremely difficult to operate the system for issuing warrants on a political basis. I can think of a number of countries, including even fellow members of our great union, in which certain members of the Government have been accused of organising the interception of communications to other members of the Government. I remember a Government that fell over that issue, when it was found that the Prime Minister had arranged with the Attorney-General to intercept communications to members of the Opposition. It is understandable that public sentiment in several countries is that there must be a judicial system for the issue of warrants.
  800
  I agree with the Home Secretary, however, that a judicial system is not always the best protection for the rights of the individual. I recall that in Northern Ireland we were attacked because we held people without charge for as long as seven days. That was considered a major breach of their human and legal rights, and we have reduced the maximum period to five days.
  I have mentioned before in the House the Eksund, a ship that had come from Libya loaded with arms on their way to the IRA, which was intercepted by the French authorities. That was a very fortunate interception, as the armaments in the shipment would have caused huge suffering. The people who were arrested and held in France under the order of an examining magistrate—that made the order judicial—were held for two years without charge. That would be absolutely unthinkable under the British system, where we were criticised for holding people for seven days. We need to think more carefully before we move to a judicial system, which people say is bound to be fairer and to provide better protection for the rights of the individual.
  I certainly endorse the present system, although doing so is, in a sense, special pleading because I had responsibility for such warrants. They were very carefully examined, and one was extremely conscious of the need to ensure that scrupulous attention was paid to them and of the fact that they would be examined—as they were by the predecessor to Lord Nolan, whose name I forget. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that the tribunal never found in favour of a complainant, but I certainly rejected certain applications for warrants because I knew that I had a duty and could be held to account for their issue.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am following what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Does either he or his Committee have a view on whether there would be a case for treating differently interception on the grounds of national security and of crime? The data protection commissioner argues that we could reasonably justify judicial control over crime and security matters while retaining administrative ministerial control over national security matters.
  Mr. King: I can answer that very quickly: the Committee has not discussed that matter. I would need to reflect on it, but I am not instinctively attracted to such a suggestion. However, we have a problem; there is no doubt that the system is under fire. I happen to believe that our system of Executive action is absolutely justifiable and defensible. As an Opposition Member, I have confidence that the present Home Secretary will discharge such responsibilities fairly. Although the system is a perfectly good one, it will be very hard to sustain.
  Mr. Rogers: Would it not be true to say that the three aspects with which the Committee is concerned—terrorism and criminal activity, national security and economic well being—often overlap and that we cannot separate terrorism from, for example, drug activity? In fact, one often funds the other, so it would not be easy to split up warranting in the simplistic way suggested by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
  Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. His point is valid and an important consideration.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: In simple language, is not the reality that we can remove politicians and Ministers, but we cannot really remove judges?
  Mr. King: There is an obvious and initial attraction in referring to a judicial authority as apparently quite separate from Executive political action, but the tradition in this country of a non-political civil service serving Ministers who have statutory duties has stood the test of time. I am not aware of any allegation at any time of political motivation in the signing of a warrant, but I am afraid that the same cannot be said for certain other countries where different systems operate.
  The Committee sees the merit in the unification of tribunals. The establishment of a single tribunal seems to be a sensible step. The effectiveness of tribunals is certainly not helped by there being different ones or by adding to confusion. A single one should be more helpful to people who are trying to identify their point of reference when making a complaint.
  The Committee has not commented on—and has discussed only briefly—what might be seen as a proliferation of commissioners and whether it is necessary to have so many. On the point about their effectiveness, I am grateful for the alertness of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) in respect of having an investigative arm in support of commissioners. On the concern of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), we have indeed appointed an investigator. We have enhanced our capacity in that sense, which the Committee believes to be important. It will add to the effectiveness of the Committee's work.
  I turn to encryption—a matter on which the Committee has taken evidence and has considered. The House will be familiar with its most recent report, in which it says in paragraph 73:
  The Home Office stated that 'It is, however, the potential use of encryption rather than its current application which gives rise to the greatest concern. Communications technologies are converging around common digital protocols in a way which will soon allow new encryption methods to be applied equally to voice as to Internet data traffic. When that happens, if nothing were done, the valuable interception capability would be progressively lost to the law enforcement services and to the Agencies'.
  Being mindful, and having some knowledge, of the importance of some of the interception that has taken place, the Committee concludes:
  We therefore welcome the Government's proposals under the Electronic Commerce Bill to include powers to issue orders for the production of keys held by any person where they are required in order to decrypt material which has been, or is being, lawfully acquired. We understand that this will include interceptions under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 which is currently also under review.
  That comment was in anticipation of the production of this Bill.
  I have seen outside comment on these matters, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred. The report of the Foundation for Information Policy Research was written by an extremely experienced civil servant who—I think—worked in the Ministry of Defence for 30 years and held a very senior position before recently leaving to become a consultant. He made three points.
  First, is there really a need for such provision? I speak on behalf of the Committee when I say that there is a need for some such facility. Secondly, the foundation
  802
  recommended that access and provision of keys should not at all times be required but that at least a transcript should be made available. In that connection—the point seems to be extremely relevant to the question of the key—how many people are we talking about? How many companies, providers and encryption service providers will have to be approached at one time or another? Who will be doing the transcribing of what might be extremely secret or sensitive information? What control will there be over that? Thirdly, if keys are to be provided, there must be proper protection of them, as they are extremely sensitive.
  The author of the report said that, if we went by the cost to the Ministry of Defence and GCHQ, ensuring the security of such keys for some companies could cost hundreds of millions of pounds. That may be special pleading, although the figure is substantial regardless of whether we divide it by two, 10 or whatever. The Minister might like to comment on that, and hon. Members may want to discuss it in Committee.
  In general, the Committee believes that this is a necessary and sensible Bill. It modernises the Interception of Communications Act 1985, moving it into the 21st century. It seeks to take account of some of the developments in this rapidly changing world. As the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) said, the speed with which the world is changing gives us the clearest guidance that it will continue to do so rapidly. If interception is to continue to be an effective aid to the protection of national security and the national interest, we shall have to discuss, in five or 10 years' time, things that have not yet been invented. Against that background, the need to modernise now is clear, but as that modernisation occurs and the challenges become greater, we must at all times bear in mind the proper protection of the citizen, his privacy and his rights.
  Although the Bill's Second Reading is not likely to be opposed, major difficulties and challenges will be thrown up in Committee. However, on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I welcome the introduction of the Bill. I shall watch its passage with great interest.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Brian White: Given that my wife used to work at Bletchley Park, it is appropriate for me to contribute to the debate on the Bill. Before I commence, I should declare that Caspar Bowden, who is a director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research, is a researcher of mine. However, the comments and views he has advanced under the FIPR banner are his own and have nothing to do with me. I shall not detain the House long, but I want to raise a couple of points that cause me concern. In part, they echo points raised by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). However, I should make it clear that I support the principle of the Bill.
  The Bill started life as part III of the Electronic Communications Bill. At that time, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary expressing my concern. Despite his reply to that letter and his response to my intervention earlier today, I still have doubts. My main concern about the Bill's construction is that it will be impractical because of technological change, and unfair because innocent parties who happen to operate the technology will be caught by it, not criminals. It has the

  803
  potential to damage e-commerce in this country, although that is because of the perception it will create, not the reality. Finally, the Bill does not really address e-crime. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister shares my belief that amendments in Committee will alleviate my concerns and turn the Bill into a good one.
  Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the analysis by Caspar Bowden of the FIPR of clause 12, which deals with interception capability on the internet? He says that it will be extremely difficult to find a way to intercept communications sent using split-packet technology, which sends many messages in small parts in many different directions at once.
  Mr. White: I would not say that it is impossible, but it will be extremely difficult. One of my concerns is that changing technology means that the armoury available to law enforcement agencies will not be up to the job.
  Before addressing part III, I have one comment to make on part II. The data protection commissioner has regularly criticised blanket national security exemptions that preclude any inspection or enforcement. The Bill does not rectify that problem, as I hope Ministers have noted.
  Under the Bill as currently constructed, an individual is presumed guilty if he is properly served with a notice with which he does not comply. I accept that some improvements have been made since similar proposals were made under the Electronic Communications Bill, but the basic problem remains. The Minister will say that there is a statutory defence, whereby that individual demonstrates that he does not have possession of the key. The difficulty is that, even among computer professionals, it is a frequent and almost inevitable occurrence that keys are lost, forgotten or destroyed, either inadvertently or deliberately.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary appears to think that loss of keys is rare, but I have lost count of the number of internet services to which I have subscribed but subsequently forgotten my password. I regularly visit Amazon.com, but the last time I did so, I found that I had forgotten my password, so I had to go through the rigmarole of re-establishing myself. How am Ito convince a judge, who might not even have heard of a PC, let alone the newer technologies, that I am not lying—that I cannot remember my key and that I am not deliberately concealing it? A criminal who is prepared to risk a six-month jail sentence to conceal a key will be in a better position than an innocent person who is faced with having to try to prove a negative—that he has a sieve-like memory and that he is not deliberately concealing a key.
  The Bill will change people's habits. Most people remember their keys by making them a word or a date that is easy for them to recall, but such keys are easy to crack. To make them harder to crack, people are advised to use random sets of numbers and letters, but such combinations are much easier to forget. I recently participated in an online discussion which included some sensitive material. I cannot now remember the password, although it is probably written down somewhere and I might be able to recover it. However, if the police start to
  804
  investigate the matter, suspecting subversion, how am I to prove that I have a defective memory and that I am not deliberately withholding anything?
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I do not want to get into a debate about whether the burden of proof is the wrong way around, but we should not lose sight of the fact that a sensible honest business will not lose its keys, which are the secret of its commercial success, and that the people who have "lost" their key might well be those who have something to hide.
  Mr. White: My argument is about people's defence in such circumstances, but the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point: businesses will treat the key like they do a spare safe key and deposit it with a trusted third party.
  That brings me to my main concern. If depositing a key with a trusted third party to avoid such problems becomes the norm, the Government will have effectively reintroduced voluntary key escrow by using subtle pressure and exploiting human nature. That subject was debated a year ago and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that voluntary key escrow—not mandatory key escrow, as the Conservatives had originally proposed—was wrong and that the Government would not return to it. If I were cynical, I would argue that that will be the outcome of the Bill being enacted. My hon. Friend the Minister has the chance tonight to state clearly that key escrow, whether voluntary or not, is not on the agenda; and that the fact that trusted third parties may be used to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Bill will not be exploited to reintroduce the concept.
  The Confederation of British Industry parliamentary briefing states that the Bill will
  impose impractical and unacceptable burdens on business.
  I do not necessarily accept that, but the CBI may be right. Those burdens can easily be alleviated by a company moving offshore—to Ireland, Holland or various other countries. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton spoke about global interconnections: a company need only relocate its communications headquarters to a different country. Such actions would be damaging to this country.
  Along with other hon. Members now present, I am a member of EURIM—the European Informatics Market—which exists to provide advice to parliamentarians. It says in respect of part III:
  There are also real technical concerns that the intentions of this Part are not achievable in the real world. The user may enter a passphrase … to enable encryption … but that will not mean they have access to the actual keys. Possession of a key is itself a questionable concept—
  especially where the nature of the communications technology used means that no record of the keys is kept. The password allows the individual to access the information, but the encryption key is never seen. EURIM advises that, often, it will be extremely difficult to recreate the technical environment in which the key was originally used, adding that
  Decryption may only be possible on the originating system, which may belong to an innocent party caught up in an investigation by the nature of the technology.
  I am concerned that an understanding of the technologies that may be involved is not fully reflected in part III. I would appreciate the Minister giving that matter serious consideration in Committee.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the hon. Gentleman, like me, seen many spy films in which a single key is used to get into

  805
  the message and promptly burned? Surely anyone who wanted to avoid the possibility of the surveillance services taking the key would do that?
  Mr. White: I am not sure that the best way to avoid the security services is to watch James Bond, but the point about one-off keys is a serious one, to which I shall return.
  It is critical to achieve the right balance between privacy and investigation. We need the law to tackle criminals, not ordinary businesses. I am worried that the way in which the Bill is phrased will allow criminals to make use of the loophole which still permits encryption at source. Investigation will focus on the end of the process.
  There is a case in the United States involving a guy called, I think, David Smith. If I have got the name wrong, I apologise. He sent pornographic material to the first 50 e-mail addresses on various servers. That material is for ever on the recipients' hard disks. If the matter were investigated, action would be taken against them, and not necessarily against the sender, who caused the problem. I understand that he is awaiting sentence. The example illustrates some of the problems of which we should be aware.
  Liberty considers that the Bill
  will enable serious infringements of privacy for no worthwhile gain.
  That is a danger, and we need to demonstrate the gains that will be made through such infringement.
  The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires
  disclosure of information to be supplied in a legible and usable form.
  That does not preclude key disclosure, and would be a better way of alleviating my concern.
  I am worried about the practicalities and the technology change. We run the risk of alienating companies that want to do business in the UK. I know of at least three banks that relocated their internet operations—one to Singapore, one to New York and one to Ireland—as a result of the original measure in the Electronic Communications Bill. That was done last summer, mainly from fear of the provision.
  My hon. Friend the Minister may say that I am overreacting, that business is sanguine about the measure and that he has not received many complaints. If that is the case and I am wrong, I have made an idiot of myself, which does not matter. However, if I am right and there is a real danger, it is a serious matter, which I urge him to reconsider.
  Improvements could be made to the Bill. We have heard reference to clause 49(1) and the burden of proof. The present wording should be changed to make it a requirement to take all practical steps to disclose a key or plaintext in a person's possession. Clause 50, dealing with the tipping-off offence, should be rewritten. I shall return to the matter.
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) postulated a situation in which someone receives sensitive information which is then disclosed. The consequences can be severe, and the Bill should make provision for that.
  The Government have underestimated the cost of protecting sensitive data, as is made clear in the report that was mentioned. The data may be commercially sensitive, or it may consist of intercepted discussions between freedom fighters or exiled politicians and people back home. Interception of such communications could endanger the lives of those people.
  806
  We are not dealing merely with a floppy disk in the Home Secretary's drawer or in a police station. I know how easy it is to hack into the files of the police and Customs. When I worked for Customs, a superb security system was installed, and every file was protected, except one. That was the security file, which someone had forgotten to password-protect, and all the codes were available.
  I should hate to be part of an authority that had to ask the Home Secretary for extra money in its budget to put in extra protection for the commercial data in its systems, or a member of staff of the first authority to leak such information.
  I spoke earlier of my concern that the Bill does not recognise the changing technologies. Embedded encryption will become the standard. The latest version of Microsoft addresses that key issue and has stronger security provisions than Microsoft has ever had.
  We seem to be concentrating on cryptography, rather than on other security devices that may come on to the market. WAP—the wireless application protocol—technology used in third-generation mobile phones already has an encrypted message, although the user may not know where it comes from. Mobile phones are already changed frequently, and that will soon become common. By means of transitory encryption, the user does not know that a message has been encrypted, and the key is lost the moment the message is received. None of that is reflected in the Bill, and it is important for the Standing Committee to deal with it.
  I said that I would return to clause 50 and the tipping-off provision. If someone knows that the security of his business has been breached, the first thing that he does is to change the password and the security system, yet the Bill prevents him from doing that. Perhaps I have misread the Bill, but the provision raises numerous concerns, particularly when we consider the global implications and whether or not we change the codes in this country, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. The Bill can be altered to meet those concerns.
  Shifting the balance of some of the clauses in part III would help to encourage e-commerce, rather than giving rise to the perception that a danger exists. I emphasise that it is a perception, rather than reality, but it could still drive business away.
  It is widely recognised in other countries that a problem exists and that change is needed. As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater observed, if we do not change now, we will have to do so further down the line. Some countries are doing nothing, but that is not a valid option for us. There is a case for going along the route that we have chosen, with legislation that is way ahead of that in other countries.
  Most other countries are adopting less onerous legislation. Germany will require disclosure of the information, rather than of the key itself. The United States is concentrating on international co-operation. Those are the approaches that we should consider. I am worried that in our efforts to get it right, we may shoot ourselves in the foot by creating unforeseen problems that damage our commercial interests, which should be at the heart of part III.
  We are all aware of e-crime. I have raised with the Home Office the problem of companies being flooded with e-mail—so-called smurfing. It would be useful if the

  807
  Bill tackled e-crime, viruses and so on. That would enhance the protection available to companies that use e-commerce.
  In conclusion, I welcome the Bill. Although I have highlighted my concerns, I support the thrust of its provisions, which are needed to update previous legislation. I hope that the Government will address those concerns and perceptions, to turn the Bill into a vehicle that will permit e-commerce to continue to flourish in the UK. From the discussions that I have already had with my hon. Friend the Minister, I know that he is well aware of those issues. The Bill will be improved by the amendments that will follow.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I speak as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, but not on its behalf. The Bill has two roots. One is the need to comply with the European convention on human rights. That means that the Bill brings within its ambit many activities that are currently unregulated. Anyone who is interested in civil liberties is bound to welcome the Bill because, whatever its defects, it greatly broadens the scope of regulation. The Bill's second root is new technology and the ready commercial availability of the most sophisticated devices and systems, such as encryption and reusable mobile phones.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to two general provisions, which reproduce those in previous legislation. Several hon. Members have questioned whether Executive approval for the powers that the Bill grants is the right method, or whether a judicial mechanism for approval would be preferable.
  My instinct is for a judicial mechanism. I am not comfortable in leaving such a serious incursion into civil liberties in the hands of the Executive. I appreciate that there is a rigorous system, which is exercised with great care. However, under it, the Executive authorises Executive interference in the lives of individuals. I therefore support a move towards a good system of judicial approval. We made substantial strides in that direction when we insisted on the approvals that are required under the Police Act 1997. The previous Government introduced that Act, and Ministers may claim that it provides for judicial review of Executive approval, rather than judicial approval. However, it was a substantial and valuable step in the right direction.
  The second general issue that we could reconsider, because the Bill covers it, is the justification or grounds for incursions into civil liberties. Clause 5(3) contains a familiar litany, which includes
  national security … preventing or detecting serious crime … safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
  Those grounds are very broad, especially the third. Unlike other broad definitions, they are not refined by case law or a process of judicial review. Cases in which judges review whether definitions are appropriate and whether a reasonable man might make them do not come to court. We rely heavily on the willingness of Secretaries of State to exercise great restraint in using the powers. They exercise such restraint, but their view of what is justified might not always be shared by everyone else; their perception is not necessarily that of the public.
  808
  It is unfortunate that it is not always possible to expose matters to scrutiny. To reveal a specific purpose often makes it impossible to continue a line of investigation and would destroy the investigative process. There cannot therefore be public discussion of such matters. However, from time to time, we should reconsider the breadth of the definitions and the wide range of issues that they could theoretically cover.
  I want to concentrate on matters that appear in a new form rather than the two examples that I have considered. A new and worrying aspect of the Bill is the Secretary of State's ability to add a range of other persons or bodies to those who already have the power to intercept communications. Clauses 6 and 29 provide that further bodies can be authorised to carry out covert investigations. That can be effected by negative resolution; the Secretary of State can simply make an order. We all know the total inadequacy of the House's procedures for challenging such processes. It is not right in principle that new bodies should be added to the list of those that engage in interception without primary legislation.
  If the Government believe that the Child Support Agency should have the power to intercept communications, primary legislation should effect that. I mention the CSA, but, as I suggested earlier, all sorts of bodies could be legally defined under the Bill. They could include the rebuttal unit, the Government Whips Office, Mr. Alastair Campbell. Who knows who could be listed under the extraordinarily open-ended provisions?
  I do not accept the Opposition Front Bench view that it would be appropriate to give Departments that have important responsibilities the duty of pursuing those who break the law under the Bill. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) suggested that the Department of Social Security should be a telephone intercepting body so that it could tackle benefit fraud. Large-scale, criminal benefit fraud is a job for the police, who have experience, discipline and accountability, and are engaged in such cases.
  Mr. Heald: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the benefit fraud investigation service has an organised fraud division, which deals with some large-scale benefit fraud cases? Why should that division have to make its applications at one remove?
  Mr. Beith: The bodies that exercise rare and limited powers of intercepting telephone conversations should be limited. It should not be commonly assumed that every Department has the power or can apply for a warrant to tap one's telephone. Proper law enforcement bodies can apply for such a warrant to cover those who are engaged in criminal activity. The police are the obvious people to do that in the circumstances that we are considering.
  Some bodies appear to cross the line, but are designated as law enforcement bodies. The most obvious is Customs and Excise, which applies for warrants. However, my instinct is not to extend the range of bodies that can intercept communications, but to leave the job to proper law enforcement bodies, to which Departments can turn.
  I apply the case less strongly to covert surveillance, simply because it covers a wider range of activities. An almost identical provision allows Ministers to specify additional bodies in that case. Government briefing notes

  809
  suggest that a wider range of bodies, for example, local authorities, is envisaged. We are considering powers that can be used on public health grounds or to deal with the imposition of a tax.
  I believe that we are considering activities that already take place and are being brought within the ambit of regulation. For example, a body that dealt with public health might have to undertake some covert surveillance to check whether assurances about a specific product were soundly based. A body that dealt with tax collection might have to make covert inquiries to establish whether someone was stashing money away. For that purpose, methods are used that people do not regard as public surveillance. For example, the officer who goes undercover to ascertain whether someone is carrying out an illegal money laundering activity would come within the Bill's ambit. However, the procedure for adding bodies to the list should be more stringent than that for which the Bill provides.
  A body that does not need to be added to the list because it is already covered is the Ministry of Defence, which is specified as a new body for the purposes of interception of communications. I am slightly puzzled by its appearance in the Bill. I presume that it does not appear as a cover for Ministry of Defence police; the Bill provides for them elsewhere. Is it intended to extend the use of interception by services units? Is it assumed that the Ministry of Defence will regularly apply for warrants? The way in which the Ministry of Defence has been brought into the Bill's ambit needs clarification.
  Two new powers have been added to regulation. They do not relate to activities that do not happen; they regulate those activities. The Bill assumes that the activities constitute a lower level of intrusion on the citizen. I understand that assumption. They are directed surveillance and communications data.
  Directed surveillance includes using devices outside a building that are normally less effective than those that are used inside a building. The latter would count as intrusive surveillance and are more rigorously controlled.
  Communications data cover the acquisition of information about telephone numbers that are being dialled from a specific telephone and the location from which a mobile telephone is being used. That is not the same as listening to the conversation on those phones. I can accept that that represents a lower level of intrusion and it has rightly been brought into the Bill's ambit to provide some protection and regulation. However, in Committee we must consider whether the lower levels of authorisation are adequate for citizen protection and, indeed, whether they meet the European convention on human rights requirement, which is the basis of much of the Bill. If not, we are wasting our time enacting them in this form.
  I can accept the principle that there is a difference between intrusive surveillance and some of the other kinds that are mentioned as directed surveillance and that there is a difference between listening to telephone communications and establishing that a person has telephoned a particular number on many occasions or—through his use of a mobile phone—that he frequents a particular area where he is thought to associate with other criminals.
  The computer enthusiasts will have a field day with part III and those of us who are less proficient will be a little quieter, but we are bound to ask whether it will work
  810
  and whether it is right to put the burden of proof on the computer user, who must show that he or she has not lost the encryption. I regularly lose the passwords to which I have access and, although I am perhaps not a good example, that raises questions about the burden of proof. Perhaps more important is the question whether there is a better route by which to achieve that. Hon. Members have described how readily other aspects of the Bill could be undermined by the ease with which people can hack into systems and I wonder whether there is a bugging or hacking route that might be more effective than the Bill's cumbersome and very public requirement to produce a key. That will no doubt be considered at length in Committee.
  Intrusive surveillance is necessary to protect our security and the integrity of public service and to combat serious crime, but we do not want a society that is characterised by state intrusiveness and we do not want a nosey parker state. We must therefore ensure that we have the most effective regulation of such powers and that they are confined to purposes for which they are essential and no reasonable alternatives are available. Intrusive surveillance should be limited and carried out by a limited range of accountable and well-disciplined bodies.
  There must also be, within the restraints of secrecy, an appeal mechanism. The Bill extends that mechanism so that it applies much more widely than at present and, to an extent, tidies it up. That extension is welcome, but it has an inherent illogicality or perversity. The limited information that the tribunal can give an individual is the subject of much jest—he can be told only that nothing unlawful has occurred. However, there are, unfortunately, compelling security reasons for that as we must prevent mere fishing expeditions to elicit information useful to the criminal from the system of protection. Those protections are essential and it will be the duty of the Committee to make sure that they are effective.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster): I support the Second Reading of the Bill, which represents a significant step forward for the protection of human rights. Much expertise has been shown today—although I must own up to not having expertise in many of the fields that have been covered—and as a relatively new Member, I think that we have had a fine debate that has done the House a service.
  I welcome the closer regulation of covert surveillance and interception of communications by our law enforcement and security agencies. We must aim to create a robust and comprehensive framework for regulating the use of all the techniques. The Bill is timely and represents the up-to-date legislation that is needed in an age of rapid communications developments and because of the consequences of the Human Rights Act 1998. It must be sensitive and, as many other hon. Members have said, must strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the state. We have heard many measured contributions, which augurs well for the Committee. I trust that it will deliver good legislation that has all-party support. I strongly agreed with the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), save on one point. He said that the House would return to this subject in five or six years, but the pace of change in telecoms and other communications suggests that we might do so in six to 12 months.

  811
  The Bill contains no new law enforcement activities and covert surveillance by police and other law enforcement officers is not new. I recognise the overwhelming need to detect and prevent crime, particularly serious crime in respect of which such surveillance is most commonly used. One is always conscious of the dividing line between these sometimes conflicting issues, so I welcome the proper regulation by law and external supervision—for the first time—of covert surveillance and other techniques. Among other things, that will ensure that law enforcement operations are consistent with the duties imposed on public authorities by the ECHR and the 1998 Act.
  The first interception legislation was the Interception of Communications Act 1985. In the comparatively short time since its enactment, the world of communications has changed beyond most people's belief. Parliament and the legislation that we enact must try to keep up with those changes, otherwise criminals will find ways to thwart law enforcement and serious criminals will have the advantage. That is a challenge for us all, but we must also protect the privacy of the individual and not overburden fledgling businesses.
  The Bill goes a long way to achieving the balance that most Members of the House require. It is a fundamental reform that places police, law enforcement and intelligence and security agencies on a properly regulated statutory basis. Enacting such legislation is not a new departure and, in many ways, the Bill marks the completion of a 15 or 20-year reform programme that started with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It was followed by the Security Service Act 1989, the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Police Act 1997, which introduced a code of practice on intrusive surveillance.
  The Bill will supplement those measures and provide a statutory framework that will give individuals better protection and ensure that there will be no reduction in the ability to wage war on those who perpetrate terrorism or are involved in the narcotics trade. Interestingly, my research showed that 52 per cent. of all heroin seizures in 1998 resulted directly from intelligence interception and it is estimated that the total value of drugs seized in that way was more than £185 million. There is a clear need to ensure that interception and the fight against crime are not undermined. At the same time, protection of the individual must be uppermost in our minds. That is the challenge for the Committee, which I am sure will come to the right conclusions. I welcome the Bill.
  6.38 pm
  Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) is absolutely right: we have had an intelligent debate. As one who has little knowledge of intelligence operations, I shall be cautious and approach only one aspect of part III. Since the Bill's publication, I have been listening to a number of police inspectors and chief inspectors who will want to use its provisions, and they particularly like certain aspects of it. One recently gave me the example of a known paedophile with whom the police had been dealing. He was a member of a ring and the sort of gentleman who believes that there is nothing wrong in his activities. Most, if not all,
  812
  the members of the ring were arrested and convicted, but this individual was not because he successfully protected all his electronic information so that neither the police nor the security forces were able to break the code or the key. That individual did not go to court, and has disappeared for the moment.
  The police feel that this aspect of part III is desirable. They have asked for it, and they are looking forward to it. However, their difficulty is that, despite the promises, good words and good intentions of part III, it collapses when we come to clause 49(5), to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred, because the punishment does not fit the crime.
  Lightheartedly, I should like to ask the Minister to put himself in the shoes of a well-known paedophile—perhaps we could call him Gary, and imagine a little more hair and some high-heeled shoes to add some character. As a paedophile, Gary believes that it is acceptable to have sex with children. He thinks that the bulk of society is completely out of step. He belongs to a group called the paedophile information exchange, and he and his disgusting friends use the internet to exchange data, ideas, names, photographs and even films related to their paedophile activities. That is all stored electronically, and protected by a sophisticated encryption system.
  Our imaginary friend Gary is under investigation by the police for suspected paedophile activities. As part of the investigation, the police have collected our Gary, along with his computers, floppy disks, CD-ROMS and his full action DVDs. Gary is somewhat relaxed, because all his data are protected and the police have failed to get into his files in the past. He anticipates that he will be all right, until his solicitor explains that the Bill provides new powers that enable the police to insist that he produces the key to unlock the evidence.
  Our imaginary paedophile Gary knows that if the police had access to that information they could arrest him and many of his paedophile colleagues. It is hoped that they could also locate and arrange help and protection for the many children that he and his friends have abused. He also realises that he will be charged and almost certainly convicted for a range of offences, starting with possession of indecent photographs and pseudo-photographs of children through to rape and buggery of children. He would face a sentence of 10 years or life for many of those offences.
  Gary realises that there is ample evidence that he, and he alone, has regular access to much of this information. His solicitor advises him that, if he refuses to produce the key, on summary conviction he would face a term of six months and perhaps a fine, and on conviction on indictment he would face two years and a fine, of which he would probably serve a few months. His choice is obvious.
  Obviously, I am not accusing the Minister of being a paedophile. But I am asking him to put himself in the shoes of someone accused of either paedophilia, theft with a maximum penalty of 10 years, obtaining property by deception with a maximum penalty of 10 years, false accounting with a maximum penalty of seven years, forgery and counterfeiting with a maximum penalty of 10 years, or robbery with a maximum penalty of life.
  I hope that the Minister, when he winds up, will note the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald. Assuming that the first part of

  813
  that clause is satisfactory to the Committee, it would be right and proper to include an appropriate sentence. In the eyes of the policemen who will put this measure into action, it will not work unless the penalties are considerably stronger.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) is to be congratulated on the excellence and brevity of his speech. Brevity is what we should all seek to achieve. However, I am afraid that I shall be a little longer than my hon. Friend, but I shall try to give as good value.
  First, I must put on the record the fact that I am a professional adviser to the Telecommunications Managers Association, and I have a reasonable—certainly from my poor pocket's point of view—shareholding in Cable and Wireless and British Telecom. I am also the unpaid vice-chairman of the parliamentary information technology committee in the House, and the unpaid vice-chairman of the European informatics Market group.
  I also want to boast a little, because I have had a good year in Bills—it has been far better than when I supported the Government. Being in opposition has something to be said for it. When the draft of the Electronic Communications Bill was first published, my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench were kind enough to show me a copy. They and I felt that it contained some objectionable elements, especially on key escrow. We had detailed discussions with Ministers, and to their credit they decided not to go ahead with those objectionable parts of that Bill. The Department of Trade and Industry sensibly passed on those difficult issues to the Home Office, which was not quite so sanguine about doing away with those objectionable aspects.
  I recently served on the Committee considering the Utilities Bill. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the Second Reading debate. Immediately I was put on the Committee, I spoke to DTI officials—my reaction to the inclusion in the Bill of the telecoms industry was to ask, why? The Government have a manifesto commitment to change the regulation of communications, and the White Paper that was published in the autumn proposed just that. In my first speech on that Committee, I told the Government that that part of the Bill was nonsense and should be changed. The Government said that there was no problem, but last week they decided to withdraw the telecommunications aspects—for which they gave a lame excuse—and the water provisions, but we still do not know why they did that.
  Perhaps the Minister would be so kind as to take notice of what I am saying. My advice to my Front-Bench colleagues was that we should vote against this Bill. It is the most appalling legislation that I have ever seen. It could probably be amended in Committee, but it needs an enormous amount of amendment. The great advantage of terrible legislation is that it often never gets used. We stay up all night, put legislation on the statute book, but the courts and the police never use it. I am reminded of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which gives various people powers to protect data. There has hardly been a successful prosecution under that Act. It was aimed at hackers, but has been more or less ignored.
  When I first read the Bill, I was directed to the technical clauses, but I thought that if I was to understand it, I might as well start at the beginning. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 are
  814
  extraordinary. If we let the Bill go through in its present state, what will be the position of those who have transferred from one party to another with their pagers intact? Having been told by the Whips that they are no longer authorised to receive messages, doing so will be a criminal offence punishable by two years in prison. That may seem a minor issue, but one ex-member of the Conservative party still uses his pager to the benefit of the Labour party. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) may very soon leave the Labour party, and he no doubt still has his pager.
  We are being told that the Bill is necessary to upgrade and modernise the regulation of the internet. However, it contains nothing that will assist people in getting information that is passed over by package switching, which uses many different routes. If that is to be done effectively, one has to put the tap on the end of the wire from which one is trying to get the information. That has always been done in exactly the same way. I shall go into more detail about how we could help the police to catch criminals.
  What about temporary files? I discovered on the parliamentary data video network that our system captures temporary files when someone is using a remote access to this place. Someone who is authorised to use the system but not to see someone else's e-mails can access them. I printed some off to show that it can be done. I understand from my reading of the Bill that it is still possible to do that without being caught by the legislation. The only problem is that the Officers of the House who set up the system will be caught by it. We shall have only a few people working for us shortly, because they, too, will end up in prison for two years.
  What about the interception of postal packages? When I am opening the hundreds of letters that I regularly receive, I often look at one and say to myself, "Hang on a minute, this is not for me; it is for my namesake, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)." I shove the letter back in its envelope, write on it "Sorry, Malcolm—opened in error", and send it to him. The Bill is so badly drafted, however, that under it I will have committed an offence that could put me in prison for two years. I will not just have read what is written on the envelope, which I am entitled to do to help the letter to reach its correct destination, but I have intercepted some postal system illegally. Hon. Members shake their heads, but I have read the Bill carefully, and I suspect that others should also be concerned.
  Mr. Fabricant: Far be it from me to introduce division on the Conservative Benches, but surely that has always been the case under Post Office regulations.
  Mr. Bruce: That may well be true, but I do not think that, if it is true, we should perpetuate the system. We should think carefully about exactly what could happen, especially in view of the penalties provided for in the Bill.
  In any event, I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right because I have not read all the Acts involved. In general, we assume that, once the Post Office has delivered something, what happens to it is not subject to legislation. Let us assume that my wife decides to open my post. Under the Bill, if I have not authorised her to do so she, too, could end up in prison. What if post arrives for one's children and one thinks, "This looks important: I had

  815
  better open it to find out what it is"? If the contents prove embarrassing to the children and they are over the age of consent, they may well have grounds for an action against their parents. Packages are often delivered to tenants who have done a flit, having not paid the bills. What if a landlord opens such a package, either to readdress it or to find out what has been going on?
  As for the telecommunications aspect, I am a little worried about the implications of even answering the telephone in the event of a wrong number. I suspect that one could not be caught for doing that, but what if a "wrong number" telephone call was recorded on my answerphone, and was then available to me? I might well be committing an offence.
  Under the Bill, an existing private system will become attached to a public system. Nowadays, almost every household contains a telephone extension; certainly, every business has extensions. The change in the law means that anyone listening to anyone else's conversation will be committing an offence punishable by two years in prison. Cordless telephones often pick up other people's conversations; again, someone listening might inadvertently commit an offence. I am not sure that the House wants to introduce such a provision, but the Bill introduces it.
  I have received e-mail that was sent to me because someone had forgotten that the copies were being forwarded to the wrong people. Someone whom I threatened to sue wrote to a friend with copies of my e-mails, asking for an opinion. When the friend sent the e-mails back to that individual, I received copies of both the original correspondence that the guy had sent and the stuff sent to me. According to my interpretation, the Bill would make that an offence.
  What about employers who record telephone conversations? That is done in most spheres of financial services. I hope that the Minister has worked out how it will be dealt with. People are often not told that conversations are being recorded, although it is normal practice in many businesses, so that there is no dispute about what was said by a customer or by someone involved in the business. Frequently, such recorded calls catch information from people who are engaging in personal conversations that are nothing to do with the business.
  I had intended to talk only about the technical side, but what really worries me is the fact that we seem to be tying the hands and legs of our police officers. So complex are the arrangements for the issuing of warrants that I fear that the police will constantly fall foul of the rules. They will try to keep to the rules, but if they have got some detail wrong they may find that they have done something illegal under those rules, and that, as a result of their acting on criminal intelligence on that basis, the case is thrown out of court.
  Someone may believe that the police are going to impose surveillance on a particular named person, only to discover after the issue of the warrant that a different person is involved. If the right information was not given to the magistrates in the first place, it will make no difference that a criminal was caught, and that there were good reasons for the method employed. The arrangements are too bureaucratic and involve too many people, and I do not think that that helps.
  816
  When I first read the Bill, I thought that I had misunderstood the way in which the European convention on human rights—which we have now incorporated into our law—will affect the way in which the police do their business. I am not talking about surveillance in the sense in which we all think of it—people planting bugs and so forth, for which warrants have always been issued; I am talking about the fact that a police officer who does not identify himself as a police officer, who is involved in following a criminal or getting into conversation with one, needs a warrant from a senior officer. The document that I have received from the Library refers to a superintendent; the Bill refers to a deputy chief constable. In any event, that officer needs a warrant to do what we all think happens all the time.
  Let us suppose that a police officer is sitting in a public house. A guy walks up to him and offers him drugs, a radio or something of that nature. If the police officer arrested him immediately, saying, "I am a police officer", there would be no problem, but let us suppose that he strings the guy along. Let us suppose that he says, "I have some friends who would like this. Got any more?", or, "Go back and see whether you can get any more drugs from the other guy." Any covert operation of that kind would be caught by the Bill, which requires officers to go and find a warrant.
  I commend the document from the House of Commons Library, especially pages 16, 17 and 18. It is interesting to read. It states:
  Plain clothes detectives who spot known criminals in the street will need written permission to summon other officers to monitor the suspects' behaviour, under new rules governed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
  If the regulations are not followed, any prosecution will automatically fail, even if the officers subsequently witness a blatant crime.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary, said:
  This is absolutely potty … It shows that all fears about incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into British law have been proved right. Jack Straw should state immediately that these rules will not apply here. It is complete nonsense.
  It is in the Bill, however. Warrants have to be obtained for people to conduct ordinary covert police operations. Either they must go around wearing badges saying "I am a police officer", or they must be in uniform, or else they must have warrants. Even if they are following up a known criminal, they must give sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant to allow them to engage in covert surveillance. That is bonkers.
  Mr. Beith: I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman should quote words said by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that she did not use in the debate. Perhaps she has subsequently concluded that the Bill does not work in quite the way that he suggests.
  Mr. Bruce: That is a question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald will have to address, but it seems extraordinary that the House of Commons Library has interpreted the position in that

  817
  way—there are three pages; I will not read them out. I commend to every hon. Member what the paper says about what will happen if the Bill comes to pass.
  Mr. Darvill: The hon. Gentleman has quoted the House of Commons Library paper, but that paper just sets out quotes from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), without commenting on them in detail. It is merely quoting.
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The paper goes into the Association of Chief Police Officers code of practice, pointing out that the code is not legislative; it is the way that the police normally deal with things. The paper goes on to say on page 18:
  One force has summarised the rules by telling its detectives: "In the scenario where a known shoplifter is seen in shops and plain clothes officers are sent to keep observations, the Superintendent's authority must be sought."
  It will be a deputy chief constable under the Bill.
  "In that case, where an officer in plain clothes sees a likely offender, and keeps observations, the authority is not needed"—
  although I am not sure that that will be the case under the Bill—
  "however, if he calls other officers to the scene, a Superintendent's authority is required.
  These codes will become law in October. If any cases where these codes have been breached are heard after this time, the prosecution will fail".
  The hon. Gentleman may know that my son is a police officer. We often have late-night conversations because we both do not finish work until all sorts of strange times. I have listened to his frustration as a police officer running around after criminals trying to secure proper prosecutions. This country has tied up the detection of criminals and securing a prosecution with more and more red tape, more and more regulation and more and more paperwork. The Bill does not help. It is probably the most backward step in that procedure that we have ever had. If we give a police officer a warrant—that is what he gets when he signs up—he should be able to go after criminals. By all means, if that officer has used some covert system to do that, that should be recorded, but to have to get, all the time, prior authorisation by a very senior officer seems completely potty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald used that word; it is very apt.
  Everyone thought I would talk about the encryption keys. I again commend to Members who will be on the Committee—I am already on the Committee that is considering the Utilities Bill and will not be able to serve on this Bill—the words of the Foundation for Information Policy Research, its director Caspar Bowden and the papers that have been produced by one his colleagues, Dr. Gladman. They are clear and easy to read. It is the sort of thing that we sad people do on a Sunday: actually read about what is happening.
  I have tried to be analytical about the Bill. I am less unhappy about the encryption side than I thought I would be. It is clear that one does not have to give away keys, the private keys, as long as one is decrypting what the law enforcement people require. That is reasonable.
  It is unreasonable to force someone to give away the key so that some other person can decrypt. Often, that private key is the private key to masses of data, which have nothing to do with the criminal investigation.
  818
  Ministers need to look carefully at the matter and to ensure that all the codes, let us say, of a bank are not broken, and that all the accounts are not got at, simply to get at the one account that someone is trying to go after.
  People hide information on their computers. They include not just criminals who send messages about where the drugs will be picked up, or whatever; often, it is apt for pornography. I want the Government to try to help the police to break that terrible crime and to help the victims, the children, who are exploited to get the pornography and the paedophilia that goes with it. One can take a better route to ensure that people can decrypt as much as possible.
  What did surprise me in the Home Secretary's comments is that anything that is received by way of a warrant is not adduceable in evidence. Obviously, lawyers think that that is right. It seems bonkers to me. If we are going to go to the lengths of forcing people to provide information through decryption under a warrant, it should be available to the courts. There will be occasions when one does not want to say that there has been surveillance. The prosecutor should not be forced to use that evidence and to reveal that it has been acquired via a warrant, but it seems mad to disallow that as evidence, so I hope that Ministers will look at that matter.
  We need to discuss whether a criminal can be caught by the legislation. If we are to put burdens on the rest of electronic commerce, it will be important to achieve the purpose, which is to catch criminals. If a criminal wants to ensure that, once he has read a message, he cannot be forced to give up the key, he will find a trustworthy person and say, "You see this key. Here is a light. I am burning it. I now have absolute proof that I no longer have the key." That seems to be the way in which someone will try to ensure that no one can get to the information after it has been read.
  The Home Office should know that even though people are securing something within the memory of the computer, often, all the information that has been translated and put on to the screen has gone through a buffer and that buffer can be read by a competent computer technologist. Reading the hard disk to find out what had gone before is not that difficult.
  Again, if someone wants to see what is happening on a screen, they could set up a covert camera to point at the screen—a simple surveillance technique—so that they could see exactly what is being decrypted. After all, that should be adduceable in evidence. For example, if someone who is looking at pornography is seen with the screen, one could prove that they have looked at the pornography, as well as possessed it.
  When someone is putting things on to his screen, it is not that difficult technically to have a device in the computer—again, put in as a surveillance device—to send all information to the screen along a telephone line to a bug. In many ways, at the right level the old surveillance systems are perfectly adequate for dealing with these issues. That matter should be looked at carefully.
  I have a worry about someone being given a warrant to obtain information. A police officer may walk in and give the managing director, or company secretary, of a company a warrant, saying that, as the persons responsible for the company, they must provide him with the key to the information. Under the law, they cannot go to the computer engineer and say, "How do I do this?" because

  819
  information will be passed on, which is not allowed. They are allowed to talk only to a lawyer about the matter. That seems silly and impractical. The wording should be correct—it should ensure that people who have to provide the information will be able to do so.
  Of course, it will be an impossible situation. The police may have been to a particular organisation and perhaps talked to one or two people there. Another guy may come up and say to those two guys, "Crumbs, what are you doing?" They will say, "We have been asked by the police to get the key to this. You can get five years in prison for doing that." Imagine the conversations that might ensue. One goes home to one's wife and says, "I'm sorry that I'm a bit late tonight, darling", to which she might well reply, "Where have you been?" "Well, it's a bit of a secret." "No, where have you been?" "Well, some police officers came in and asked me to get the cryptographic keys, so that we could decrypt something."
  In the legislation, the husband in that dialogue, by divulging that information, would be guilty of an offence carrying a possible five-year sentence. Such a situation is nonsense. If someone releases information that gets back to the criminals, enabling them to get away with their crimes, that person should be prosecuted. However, people should not be liable to prosecution merely for telling someone that they have passed information to someone else. The innocent would be caught by such a provision, and that would be silly.
  The Bill makes various provisions that could catch the innocent. It is also too prescriptive in dealing with police. We have to cut red tape away from the police, not bury them in it. The Bill is also too restrictive for new electronic companies and it could impose costs that serve no useful purpose. I do not believe that, in many technical spheres, the Bill will do much to catch criminals.
  We already have some very sensible laws on investigatory powers. We want light-touch regulation; we want people to co-operate with the forces of law and order. I believe that, ultimately, law-abiding people should accept that, occasionally, they may come under surveillance to enable the forces of law to continue to protect them.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I do not share all of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), but I share some of them.
  An interesting fact—just to set the scene—is that, in the United States, 44 per cent. of families have access to the internet, whereas, in the United Kingdom, only 18 per cent. of families are connected. However—with today's announcement that Alta Vista will provide free internet access for only £10 annually, which is a major improvement and very good news—the UK percentage is likely to grow.
  At current levels of internet access in the United Kingdom, however, 100 million e-mails are being transmitted daily worldwide. That is a lot of e-mails to try to intercept. Nevertheless, the Bill aims rightly to deal with how best to intercept telecommunications between criminals. In 1993, only 1,005 telecommunications warrants were issued under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. In 1998, the number almost
  820
  doubled, to 1,913 such warrants, compared with only 118 letter warrants. The number of telecommunications warrants issued is most likely to be even higher than the number recorded, as information on warrants issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Northern Ireland Office was not published. We all understand why that information has not been published—it is far too sensitive.
  It is interesting that the Bill is receiving its Second Reading today, when we have also had the "G3" auction of franchises for the third generation of mobile telephones, enabling mobile telephones to be used not only for voice communications, but for receiving very high-quality pictures and for internet access. If all goes well, that technology will be coming on stream in the next two or three years.
  Currently, Virgin Net—to provide a little more information about the scale of developments—has over 100,000 passwords active in the United Kingdom. We are well aware of the type of problems that can arise from people using e-mails and the internet. Recently, Amazon and Yahoo were attacked, when, in one second, they received more e-mails than they would usually receive in a year. Although the Bill is aimed primarily at dealing with criminals who are concerned with making money from drugs or with terrorism, terrorism is inflicted also against the internet and the City. The attack on the World Trade Organisation meeting, in Seattle, and last summer's attack on the City were co-ordinated in e-mail messages between anarchists. I hope that the Bill will deal with that type of information.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, I have various concerns about the Bill. I do not know why, for example, clause 25 does not cover tracking devices. The Minister is talking to the Whip, but I ask him to listen to my concerns—simply because I hope that he will deal with some of them in his reply.
  Clause 25 states that tracking devices are not covered by the Bill. Why are they not covered? It is extraordinary that one should not be able to issue a warrant to track a vehicle being used by criminals, to determine where they are going and with whom they are meeting. It is an unusual provision to omit from the Bill.
  Although clause 1 gives the power to demand access to encrypted data—an issue which has already been dealt with in detail by my right hon. and hon. Friends—it does not address the issue of how we are to deal with data that criminals themselves have encrypted. How will we be able to decrypt that information? I am quite sure that that type of information will be encrypted not by internet service providers, but by criminals themselves. They will use black boxes both to encode and to decode their e-mails.
  How much information can be decrypted? Both the United Kingdom Government and the United States Government use Cray computers, but data exceeding 128 bits—or, nowadays, perhaps 256 bits—are difficult to decrypt. Although I appreciate that the Minister will not wish to deal with that matter in detail, I should like to be reassured that the issue will be addressed.
  I am slightly concerned by clause 1(6), which deals with companies' right to snoop. As I said in an earlier intervention, I agree that it is right and proper for companies to record—providing that they announce it in advance; it is not right if they do not announce it in

  821
  advance—financial transactions made on the telephone, for example. I am sure that many hon. Members use telephone and internet banking services. It is quite right and proper that that type of conversation should be recorded.
  It is wrong, however, for companies to monitor their employees' telephone conversations, to try to stop them using their telephones for personal conversations. That is going a little bit too far, and I ask the Minister to comment on that matter.
  Clause 53 states that MI5, MI6, GCHQ, police, Customs and Excise and the Ministry of Defence will not be covered by the covert investigations commissioner. If those bodies will not be covered by the covert investigations commissioner, who will be? Who will be watching the watchers?
  In replying to the Home Secretary's speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said that the Department of Social Security should be allowed to instigate investigations to counter benefit fraud. I agree with her, but I go even further on the issue. As we all know, criminal organisations try also to defraud the Inland Revenue. If Customs and Excise—particularly customs officers—is able to initiate warrants, why cannot the Inland Revenue, in its own right, initiate warrants in its attempts to fight serious crime?
  The Home Secretary told my right hon. Friend that, if a crime is serious enough, a warrant could be initiated by police. As we all know, however, there are often delays in obtaining a warrant. Nevertheless, sometimes, a warrant has to be issued swiftly or a tap has to be installed quickly. It all takes time. Therefore, although I echo my right hon. Friend's call to give the Department of Social Security the right to initiate a wire tap or a warrant to examine mail, the right should be extended also to the Inland Revenue.
  The Home Secretary said that he realises that telephone numbers can be changed rapidly, and he said that the Bill seeks to allow telephone numbers subject to surveillance also to be changed quickly, essentially to mirror telephone number changes made by criminals. Why not simplify the system, and include in warrants the name of a location or an individual? If we were to do that and an individual were to change his or her telephone number, a fresh warrant would not have to be issued. Warrants issued to cover a mobile telephone or an internet account would definitely have to include a named individual.
  I should like, finally, to pick up on a comment made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who said that, although ever more information is being collected on the individual, ever less information is being collected on who holds that information. That must strike a chord with many hon. Members. We hear of people applying for mortgages or hire purchase who find that their credit limit is nil because of a bad credit rating. It is difficult to track down why that has happened and who has given out the information, and there is a duty of care.
  I wholly support the intentions of the Bill to protect people from pornography, drugs, terrorism, and the other crimes about which we have heard today. However, there ought to be protection for the individual so that they know precisely who is holding information and why it is being gathered in the first place. Having quickly elucidated
  822
  those concerns, I wish to say that this is a timely Bill which, in principle, has my support—although I have difficulties with some of its clauses.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: This has been a good debate, with thoughtful speeches from both sides. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred to three principles which will govern our view of the Bill. The first was that those who fight the crimes that go to the heart of our security as a nation, often in difficult circumstances, should have our support and should have the modern means that they need to fight crime effectively and to protect our country effectively.
  Secondly, the liberty of the subject cannot be ignored when powers of this sort are being dealt with. We must ensure that, so far as possible, the balance between the interests of those who fight crime and the interests of the subject who must be free are properly weighed. Thirdly, we should consider always the interests of those who do business for Britain and those who rely upon our commitment as a nation to free trade. They should not be over-regulated.
  We have heard some good examples of the background to the debate. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) highlighted the problems caused by international drug traffickers and the way in which they use modern communications to ply their foul trade.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—speaking on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee—told us of how familiar the Committee is with the national security challenges that the country faces in terms of terrorism and organised crime. However, he made the point that if we are to protect this country, we must protect the human rights which make this country what it is. He mentioned the companies involved in e-commerce and the varied nature of e-commerce. That theme was taken up by many hon. Members. He explained that with hundreds of companies involved in electronic communications, the task of those who must intercept communications to defeat crime becomes that much more difficult.
  Hon. Members set out the problems, and provided some details of how difficult it is to deal with modern communications while trying to retain some rights which crime fighters have had almost since time began. I think that the first warrant was given to intercept a postal communication in 1647, although I am ready to be corrected. I am sure that there was some interception of communications going on in the age of the caveman. This has always been a matter of importance to those fighting crime. In the modern age, achieving the simple aim of intercepting what one person has said to another has become difficult.
  The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) referred to the difficulties of split-packet technology. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald mentioned, when messages are being sent via the internet, one whole message is not sent off to be received by someone at the other end. The message is broken down into tiny split packages and sent off by any number of routes. As has been pointed out, they can go via Australia and California before arriving. [Interruption.] It was my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) who pointed that out.

  823
  To try to intercept all of those tiny communications—a snowstorm of 100 million communications a day, all broken down into tiny particles—is not an easy task. Wills Stanford of the Federation of the Electronics Industry told me that although it may be technically feasible—no one is saying that it is not—no one has yet found a way of doing that. Will the Minister tell us whether such a method has been discovered? If so, fine. However, if something is that complicated, there are bound to be substantial costs involved.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater dismissed some of the huge figures suggested, such as hundreds of millions of pounds for each company. However, he made the point that the costs could be substantial. We are saying that it is all very well for the Government to take the power under clause 13 to make a reasonable contribution to the costs of industry. However, are the Government going to do it? On what basis will they do it? Will the Government pledge that it will be a sufficient contribution, so that no communications service provider is put out of business simply by the costs of providing the Government with the interception capability that they require for their purposes?
  Technical issues were raised concerning clause 21 and communications data. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that communications data can be a wide range of items and can give a full picture of somebody's life style, going into matters which are private. That can be justified in some cases but, at the moment, the powers in the Bill seem broad. In Committee, this should be explored. Attempts should be made to ensure that such powers are used only in serious investigations.
  The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) said that he would not be satisfied if the fact that someone had not paid their car tax provoked such an investigation. One imagines that a reasonable Home Secretary would not wish to see matters such as MOTs, car tax and council tax arrears causing the obtaining of vast amounts of communications data, and the Home Secretary himself said that he would like to concentrate on the real villains. Having said that, the powers are there—the key to any Bill—and they seem to be wide enough to allow for that. In Committee, we will tackle that issue to ensure that the law meets the laudable intentions of the Home Secretary.
  Many hon. Members referred to clauses 46 to 49, concerning the giving of a notice to obtain the code to encrypted information or providing a plain text, and the offence that is created. That was a key part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) who, as the Minister responsible, proposed a different system which he now accepts was flawed in many ways, but which was based on the idea of giving law enforcement agencies the powers that they need. My hon. Friend accepts that key escrow is not the correct approach, but he made the point that it is important, when considering the extent of the powers to issue a section 46 notice and the way in which keys are stored, not to impose key escrow on industry by the back door. The industry has spoken on the issue, and it is important that what is proposed meets the gravity of the situation without imposing mandatory key escrow.
  824
  There will be—as there is already—a role for voluntary safekeeping of codes and keys, and the Federation of Electronics Industries runs T-scheme, in which a key can be placed for safekeeping, albeit largely to ensure that it is not lost by the owner. It may become more common for companies and individuals voluntarily to secure their key in some way and I see no problem with that. However, the problem with the provisions at present is that the offence under clause 49 places the burden solidly on the individual to clear himself of wrongdoing, but the fear is—as expressed by several right hon. and hon. Members—that the real criminal would not mind too much being found guilty of failing to comply with a section 46 notice if the effect was to protect information that could be used to prosecute him and his partners in crime for serious offences.
  For example, the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit's report in May 1999 cited a case in which two suspected paedophiles were arrested by the police on suspicion of distributing child pornography on the internet. The suspects' computer systems contained pornographic images of children, but the leading suspect's computer also contained a large amount of encrypted material. The indications were that the encrypted material included the communication of child pornography all around the world via e-mail, but the police investigation was hampered by the fact that it was not possible to decrypt that information. Although the paedophiles were found guilty, it may be that the full extent of their crimes will never be known, because encryption protected them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) gave the example of Gary the paedophile and made the point that the guilty could hide behind encryption and, if necessary, claim that they had lost their key. If they are found guilty and sentenced to up to two years imprisonment, they will be sanguine about that because they could have been found guilty of more serious offences and sentenced to 10 years or more. Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—
  Mr. Straw: A new alliance.
  Mr. Heald: I would not go that far. Both Opposition parties are concerned that the provisions should concentrate their fire on the guilty—those in cases where other evidence is found at the site, or those with previous criminal convictions—rather than the innocent person abroad who may have lost or forgotten their key.
  The Home Secretary pooh-poohed the idea that people might lose their key, as if they would be proper fools. However, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East mentioned the Foundation for Information Policy Research, which states in its briefing:
  The central difficulty arises from the fact that it is an inevitable and frequent occurrence (even amongst computer professionals) that keys … are genuinely lost, forgotten or inadvertently or intentionally destroyed.
  Therefore, there is some evidence that it is a real problem.
  The Opposition will table amendments to ensure that the provisions are targeted on known offenders with evidence of previous wrongdoing admissible to prove a guilty intention. The burden of proving guilt should be on the prosecution, but it should be possible to use evidence of guilty intentions so that those who are genuinely guilty can be found guilty. If the provisions are amended along those lines, the Opposition believe that the Bill will be improved.

  825
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and others mentioned the proliferation of commissioners. Although the Intelligence and Security Committee has said that it supports one tribunal and has discussed the proliferation of commissioners, he was not able to say confidently that it was necessarily against the number of commissioners that will result from the Bill. However, the debate showed a mood to consider the idea of a unified commission that could employ investigative officers. My right hon. Friend was able to confirm that his committee has appointed an investigator so that it can be more proactive, and it may be that the commission will need staff to do its job properly. The Opposition will probe that issue in Committee and suggest that the commissioners should have more power and better staffing, and I hope that the Government will be prepared to listen.
  The Bill is at the nexus of three important principles, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said. The first is the principle that we should fight crime and do it effectively as part of the essential contract between the subject and the state. The second is that the liberty of the individual should be respected. The third is that we should have freedom of trade in this country. The Opposition believe that the Government do not, at the moment, have the balance right between those factors. However, the principle of the Bill—that we should give powers to the police and other authorities—is accepted.
  We shall seek in Committee to improve the Bill, because it would be a tragedy if we were to impose such burdens on business that the information technology industry, which has been such a success for this country recently, is hampered. We must remember that such companies have a choice. The Opposition will support the Government tonight, but in the remaining stages, we will seek to amend the Bill and we will return to the subject if we do not get satisfaction.
  7.37 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I thank the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate for its good quality and good naturedness. It has been a good debate, and a wide variety of good points have been raised. I also appreciate the general support for the Bill that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, albeit with qualifications on particular aspects, and the fact that—with one exception—the fundamental need for the Bill has been universally recognised. A wide range of issues of detail, principle and definition has been raised and I do not pretend that I shall be able to respond to all the points in detail this evening. I shall try to respond to as many as I can.
  As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has just said, the Bill must address difficult questions of balance between a range of competing principles. It is legitimate for different parties and individuals to reach different views about the precise balance that is finally settled on. However, consensus has been reached on some important principles at the outset. The first is that investigatory powers are necessary. That is a distasteful fact that none of us enjoy thinking about, and those right hon. Members who have had to exercise those powers know that they raise hard questions. However, given the crimes that we are trying to combat
  826
  and the interests of national security that we have to address, investigatory powers are necessary: we cannot say otherwise.
  Many examples have been given, but I shall cite only one or two. On drugs, for example, page 1 of the regulatory impact assessment presented for consideration by the House explicitly states:
  The risk is … difficult to quantify but, as an illustration, and at the top end of the scale, lawful interception of communications played a part—often the crucial part—in operations by police and HM Customs during 1996 and 1997, which led to 1,200 arrests … the seizure of drugs with a street value of over £600 million … the seizure of over 450 firearms.
  These successes would have been in jeopardy had the criminals used networks which fall outside the scope of the current Act's warranty regime …
  That is a serious degree of crime, involving drugs and firearms, which the Bill is tackling.
  Several hon. Members mentioned money laundering. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) raised the subject of terrorism, as did the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) mentioned paedophilia, and although I did not entirely appreciate the way in which he phrased his remarks, he raised a very real question as a serious point of debate.
  Investigatory powers are necessary, but proper statutory regulation of those powers is also needed, as I think the House accepts. The Government decided to enshrine in law the European convention on human rights in the Human Rights Act 1998, the relevant provisions of which take effect in October. That legislation places the regulatory principle at the core of the range of activities that have been undertaken, in different forms, for some time.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend referred to a certain consensus of support in the House for the proposals. Is he also aware that the organisation Justice, which has suggested some changes to the Bill, broadly welcomes the provisions overall? The organisation is unhappy with the present legislative framework, or lack thereof, and strongly believes that the Human Rights Act 1998 should be incorporated in this legislation.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I was delighted with the stance taken by Justice. I do not agree with all the details of its position, but its fundamental support for the Bill, which my hon. Friend has explained, is welcome. We need to ensure that the investigatory powers that are granted comply with the European convention on human rights, and the Human Rights Act 1998.
  Regulation is also necessary because of changes in technology, and it has to be updated to keep up with those changes. That question has been addressed by a number of hon. Members this evening, and I shall return to it in a second.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister describe how a police officer in plain clothes will be required to act when covertly following a suspect? When will a warrant be required for that?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall come to that in the course of my remarks. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's

  827
  speech, and a number of the assertions that he made were wrong. He seemed to have misread the Bill in various ways. I shall write to him in detail about several of the points that he made. He made his assertions—such as that about the pager systems—in a jokey style, but I want to place it on record that they were complete nonsense.
  The Bill is a major step forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) suggested. I was pleased when the right hon. Member for Bridgwater described the Bill as necessary and sensible. That is the correct approach to the matters that have been discussed.
  Several hon. Members raised the co-operation with industry that is at the core of the proposals. They were right to do so, for reasons of general competition, and because investigatory practices have always in the past been based on co-operation with the industry involved. The Home Office has worked very closely with the Department of Trade and Industry, and I hope that the good dialogue that we have had will improve further. We have established an industry forum, which is debating the issues, and my officials in the Home Office have held a close dialogue with the industry about how we should proceed.
  One of the consequences of the decision to devote part III to measures originally proposed in the Electronic Communications Bill has been that a much more direct form of communication has been established between industry and the Home Office. That necessary change has been welcomed on all sides.
  A number of points were raised in connection with industry. I cannot help the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) about the nationality of the chairmen and chief executives of BT and other organisations in the sector. I shall try and write to him on the matter of whether there is any requirement of the kind that he described, but I was thinking as he spoke of the fact that Rupert Murdoch used to switch his nationality for his own convenience, and it is possible that others could do the same.
  The hon. Member for Esher and Walton also asked about key escrow, and I can give him the assurances that he sought. Let me make it clear that key escrow is off the agenda. We have ruled it out of the Electronic Communications Bill, for the reasons that have been stated. Clause 13 of that Bill explicitly rules out its reintroduction, and nothing in this Bill would bring it back. Of course, no one can second-guess the omnicompetence of Parliament, which is one of our parliamentary doctrines, but we have been as clear as it is possible to be that key escrow will not be introduced.
  I should make it clear also that the back-door method of reintroducing key escrow—by putting sanctions in place or exerting pressure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) described—is not part of our intention. It, too, is off the agenda. We understand the argument put forward by the industry, which the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire set out in his speech, that it would be undesirable to have a form of legislation in this country that did not operate along those lines. We have accepted that argument, and I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he sought.
  828
  The Bill does not mandate the use of any particular encryption product. People and businesses are free to use any system that they like. That is the deliberate intention behind the Bill, for the reasons that have been set out. I hope that that goes some way to meet the concerns that have been expressed in the debate.
  The general issue of burdens has focused on the question of costs. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is not in his place at the moment, but he raised a more generally rhetorical series of issues of the kind with which the House will be familiar. However, the question of costs is very serious, and I shall concentrate on that.
  It was perfectly proper for the House to raise the important matter of costs, but we must retain a sense of proportion. The regulatory impact assessment report on part I of the Bill emphasised that the total compliance costs are not expected to exceed the measure of significance—£20 million—used in the regulatory impact assessment. We agree, but clauses 13 and 48 make it clear that we are prepared to contribute to those costs, where they arise.
  We have not stated the precise basis on which we shall make available that cash support, as we are in active discussion with the industry on the issues involved, and how much money might be needed. Various different estimates are flying around, but costs will be different for different companies. That is why it is difficult to determine the amounts of money that might be needed, but we are actively discussing the matter. We have asked for estimates from each of the companies involved, and we are considering those estimates very seriously. We are considering how to deal with the matter, and the Bill gives us the power to make cash contributions to ensure that it is dealt with properly.
  Mr. Heald: We shall come to issues such as clause 13 in Committee, but will it be possible for the Government to give us a clearer idea before then of the level of costs that are envisaged? That would enable us to debate the issues with a little more knowledge.
  Mr. Clarke: I agree that the debate thus far has been characterised by a series of figures flying around in different directions on a basis that is not exactly scientific, although I do not want to impugn the motives of anybody providing them. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be helpful to have the maximum possible information for the debate in Committee, and I shall try and ensure that it is available. A difficulty is that some of the figures are commercial-in-confidence for individual companies. That is one reason why we have not had a very open paper on the matter. I acknowledge that we need to conduct the debate in a more informed way, with as much information as possible.
  Our general stance has been to deal with the issue on the basis of marginal costs rather than the average cost of any changes that arise. There is a lot of debate on that, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in Committee we will seek to provide as much information as we can about the costs involved.
  We are discussing industry self-regulation in many of these areas. That would be far preferable to a regulated and bureaucratic system, for precisely the reasons that we gave earlier.

  829
  I now turn to the various issues regarding interception. I begin by reminding right hon. and hon. Members of the scope of the interception. Clause 5(3) states:
  Subject to the following provisions of this section, a warrant is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary—

  (a) in the interests of national security;

  (b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime;

  (c) for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom; or

  (d) for the purpose, in circumstances appearing to the Secretary of State to be equivalent to those in which he would issue a warrant by virtue of paragraph (b), of giving effect to the provisions of any international mutual assistance agreement.

  I quote that because a number of suppositions have been flying around, both in the Chamber and outside, about a range of very extreme circumstances in which the powers might be used. In fact, their use is limited by the scope of the clause. There is plenty of room for argument, and some right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the precise meaning of phrases such as
  the economic well-being of the United Kingdom …
  It is necessary to emphasise that we are talking not about some global power that has no trammels, but about a tight series of definitions which is open to discussion in Committee. That is where we start, and I think it an important point.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister confirm that there is no statutory definition of
  economic well-being of the United Kingdom
  in the Bill or applied to the Bill? If so, one could, for example, say that someone might be justified, at least in theory, in intervening for the purpose of protecting jobs or commercial contracts because it would be in Britain's interests.
  Mr. Clarke: I have been entertained in a number of environments by the flights of fancy that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to follow on some hypothetical trail. As was indicated in the debate, the phrase is used because it was used in previous legislation and is thought to be tightly enough defined for our purposes. I am happy to look at possible alternative wording, but I believe that the phrase in the Bill has stood the test of time, and we intend to stick with it. I do not intend to respond to the hon. Gentleman's hypothetical questions about what it might or might not cover in certain circumstances.
  Mr. Fabricant: The Minister may or may not be aware—I suspect that he may well be—that a near neighbour of ours, and certainly of the United States, does intelligence gathering to ensure the economic well-being of its industries and businesses. I hope that we would still be able to do the same and would not be constrained by the Bill.
  Mr. Clarke: As always, the hon. Gentleman illuminates the debate by his comments. However, I will say no more than I did to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
  Particular points were raised to which I want to respond. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) referred to the number of warrants that have been signed by the Secretary of State. That is a perfectly fair
  830
  question. There are two factors here—the first was alluded to earlier by my right hon. Friend when he said that as the technology has advanced and the number of phones and phone numbers have increased, there has been an expansion in the number of warrants for each of those phones and in those circumstances. Secondly, the unfortunate truth is that the extent of international serious crime on drugs and other business has also been expanding over the relevant period, so the importance of interception as a weapon for law enforcement and security has become increasingly significant.
  Mr. Cohen: The massive change in recent years has been in the growth of mobile phones. Is that what the Secretary of State is indicating?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has the point exactly. An individual may have not only a number of land-based telephones but mobile and other phones which he or she can change rapidly. The number of warrants increases for that reason alone.
  A further point that was raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), among others, concerned the other agencies that may be empowered to intercept communications. The arguments come from a variety of corners. Some say that the Department of Social Security should have the right to do so, some that the Inland Revenue should, and some that the provision is too widely drawn. Clause 6(1)(k) shows that the power is there, but I emphasise that we have no plans to use that power to extend the power to intercept beyond what is set out in the Bill. We have intentions on the other aspects of surveillance covered in the Bill, and I shall come to that shortly, but we have no plans to use that clause to widen the application of interception. I hope that that clarifies the situation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead also asked whether communications could be intercepted for the purpose of gathering council tax or road tax. The answer to that is no, because, as I said earlier, the scope of clause 5 does not permit the gathering of council tax or road tax to be the purpose of these communications. They are not issues of national security, although some might argue that they are.
  Mr. Heald: The Department of Social Security deals with the largest area of crime by value in the country. The Benefits Agency's organised crime division deals with crimes involving huge amounts of money. Why does it have to go to the National Criminal Intelligence Service or some other law enforcement body to obtain an interception warrant?
  Mr. Clarke: All police services in the country have to go to NCIS as well. I repeat that clause 5(3)(b) states that a warrant is necessary
  for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime …
  I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point that benefit fraud and Inland Revenue fraud are areas of serious criminal activity. The police will naturally and correctly be involved with those activities, and they will have the power to address them.
  Mr. Heald: When I was the Minister with responsibility for benefit fraud, I used to deal with this a lot.
  Mr. Clarke: Then the hon. Gentleman went up to being an Opposition Home Affairs spokesman.
  Mr. Heald: Well, there we are. It is true that there are successful combined operations with the police—the Home Secretary mentioned one. However, there are also operations conducted by the Benefits Agency organised fraud branch on its own which involve large amounts of money. Why can it not apply for an interception warrant?
  Mr. Clarke: The reason is as I have said. The Bill contains a series of different powers of surveillance and investigation, and I shall come in a moment to the type of investigation that might arise in other areas. However, interception is a significant intrusion into individuals' liberties and we consider that it should be used only by a narrow and tight range of agencies. That is what is set out in the Bill. The argument, for example, that the social services benefits fraud agency was investigating serious organised crime but not involving the police in any way and needed separate powers to do it does not stack up. They can carry out precisely the joint operations described by the hon. Gentleman, and that will continue.
  Mr. Tom King: Is not the very strong defence that the Minister is making of the need not to have any extension of these powers a powerful argument for what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said? It is not sufficient for the Government to say that they have no plans in that regard, then to let through legislation that could expand those powers and leave the Secretary of State the chance to do just that. I am not sure whether the Minister is coming to this point or whether he thinks that he has met it by saying that the Government have no plans in that regard. I do not think that that would meet the situation.
  Mr. Clarke: I shall consider the points that have been raised. I understand the force of the right hon. Gentleman's comments. As we have said, there is a balance of judgment to be made between the various issues. I was trying to suggest—although I realise that it is not palatable to Members on the Opposition Front Bench—that when it comes to the use of that extremely important, powerful and intrusive interception technique, it should not simply be given to the Department of Social Security or the Inland Revenue as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) proposed. The power would take effect only in cases of serious crime, which would thus involve police co-operation. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater asks whether we should not rule it out altogether and, in effect, delete clause 6(1)(k)—the element that widens the measure beyond current powers. I understand that point; no doubt we shall consider it in Committee. However, I thought that it was important to set out our thinking on the matter.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked why the Ministry of Defence was listed as an intercepting agency. The reason is so that an interception that is carried out to protect UK troops serving abroad, and which might involve an intrusion into a person's privacy, can be undertaken in accordance with the law.
  832
  The hon. Member for Lichfield asked why clause 25 does not cover tracking devices. It was a legitimate question—I was listening at the time. The reason is that interference with property to install a tracking device—when that is necessary—needs authorisation under part III of the Police Act 1997, or a property warrant. That authorisation is needed at present; that is why it is not mentioned in clause 25.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South asked about subsection (2)(j) of clause 6. The reason for that provision, which deals with mutual legal assistance, is that it allows an application for an interception warrant to be made in accordance with an international mutual assistance agreement. The request would have to satisfy the law of the requesting country as well as UK interception law.
  I have tried to deal with the practical points that were made about interception. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, there will be a public consultation exercise on the proposed codes of practice, but it will be the interception commissioner who oversees that, not the data protection commissioner.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) asked about the number of extra commissioners. I want to put her straight on that point, as perhaps it was not clear in the Bill. She asked if there would be two extra commissioners. There will be only one. The interception commissioner named in the Bill replaces the existing one. I hope that clarifies that matter.
  Several Members have made powerful points about the overall number of commissioners—not merely in relation to the Bill. The reason why we did not reduce the range of commissioners so that there was a single one for this process—although we did establish a single tribunal—was that we felt that it was important not to throw the existing processes in different institutions too much into the air. I have taken note of the views expressed in the debate; we shall discuss the matter in Committee and we are prepared directly to consider the position.
  I emphasise that the commissioners are not merely rubber stamps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead suggested. They take their duties extremely seriously. The Government acknowledge the seriousness with which they do their work; there is no suggestion that they take it lightly.
  I had intended to cover the general question of intrusive techniques in some detail, but, because of the hour, I shall not do so. We are considering the listing by order of other authorities to carry out direct surveillance and the use of covert human intelligence sources. The Department of Health is one such; the Medical Devices Agency observes business premises suspected of being involved in supplying counterfeit devices. MOT certificates set out when there can be intrusive investigation by the vehicle inspectorate of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  The Department of Trade and Industry has powers in such matters—as does the Health and Safety Executive. The Inland Revenue has important powers, which have been mentioned. We have already referred to the immigration service of the Home Office and to the DSS. Extraordinarily, the sea fisheries inspectorate of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food uses surveillance to determine whether vessels are keeping to their quotas and are using the correct size of nets.

  833
  We are addressing the powers of many bodies. It is an important step forward for democracy that we are introducing a Bill that puts all those forms of surveillance under a regulated system. That has not been so in the past. Most Members will welcome that change—it takes us in the right direction.
  Many points were made about the role of the judiciary versus that of the Executive. I shall not repeat the familiar comments on that matter, except to say that it is right for the Executive to take such key decisions. My right hon. Friend has signed the certificate on the front of the Bill, stating that we believe that it complies with the European convention on human rights—he did that advisedly.
  We take seriously the points made about penalties in relation to clause 49—especially those made by the hon. Members for Mole Valley and for North-East Hertfordshire. They are good points and we shall consider them. I realise that they are an attempt to improve the legislation and we shall examine them in Committee as positively as we can.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about information on whether a person had been bugged. It is difficult to imagine circumstances in which we could ever say to someone, "You have been bugged. These techniques have been used against you." The reasons were set out by my right hon. Friend earlier. It is critical that we have knowledge of the situation if we are to beat major criminals and to counter threats to national security. We must maintain the powers to investigate that are set out in the measure.
  Mr. Beith: Surely, there is now a circumstance in which somebody is in effect told that he has been bugged, because although that has never happened, the commissioner could say that something unlawful took place.
  Mr. Clarke: That is true. It has not happened, but it could happen.
  Serious points were made about encryption. Several misconceptions have arisen, both in comments when the Bill was published and in the debate. First, there have been accusations that the decryption provisions reverse the burden of proof to such an extent that it is incompatible with the presumption of innocence enshrined in article 6 of the European convention. There must be reasonable grounds for believing that a person served with a decryption notice has a key in their possession before use of the decryption power can be authorised in the first place. That is set out in clause 46.
  The offence of not complying with the notice is set out in clause 49. In that case, the burden falls on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is, or has been, in possession of a key and that he or she failed to comply with the notice. The Bill outlines several statutory defences.
  Clause 49(2) creates a defence for an individual who has forgotten or mislaid a key or password. It is true that he or she must prove the defence, but they need to do that only on the balance of probabilities. In other words, he or she must explain what has happened. It will be for the court to decide whether, on balance, the person is telling the truth. That seems to be an entirely reasonable burden to impose on an accused person. There are comparable provisions in plenty of other statutes.
  834
  The Crown Prosecution Service would, of course, need to be satisfied that it was in the public interest to pursue a prosecution in a particular case. Innocent people will not suffer under the provisions. As I pointed out, we believe that the Bill is ECHR compatible. My right hon. Friend signed a statement to that effect. It is not a frivolous undertaking.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman assured me that he would deal with my question as to when a police officer would have to get in touch with a more senior officer to obtain a special warrant simply to undertake plain-clothes activities.
  Mr. Clarke: As I pointed out, the code of practice will set that out clearly. I shall consider seriously all the hon. Gentleman's points. However, I think that in his fears about the Bill he is tilting at windmills—those fears were expressed in his interventions throughout the debate.
  The second concern that has been expressed about the Bill relates to key escrow through intimidation. That matter was also raised in the debate. I make it clear to hon. Members and to people outside the House that we shall not force anyone to use a particular technology. Individuals and businesses remain free to utilise any type of encryption, provided they choose the one that best suits their needs.
  The third point raised was about the secure handling of keys. It was suggested that the Bill will leave seized keys vulnerable. I assure the House that the Government are sensitive to the need to protect material obtained under all the powers in the Bill. The level of security to be deployed is not largely a matter for primary legislation. As the House knows, we have already announced the establishment of a dedicated resource—the Government technical assistance centre—to help law enforcement on encryption. The centre will handle the keys that are obtained. Deploying the highest level of protection for such keys and other sensitive information will be a specific objective of the technical project to establish the centre. Work on that is going on at the moment.
  I wish to emphasise one important point. We envisage that the disclosure of the plain text of protected material, rather than a key, will be sufficient in almost all cases responding to a decryption notice and I expect there to be very few cases where disclosure of the keys themselves will be required. We hope that plain text will be offered, but we believe that the security for the keys that we will offer through the Government technical assistance centre will provide the assurances that hon. Members seek.
  I come to the more general concerns that have been raised. I accept that technology is moving very fast. That makes it much more difficult to decide how we operate, and future legislation may be necessary. However, I do not accept the philosophy of despair that has been suggested by some Members. Crime is damaging society in a wide variety of ways. Therefore, we believe strongly that we need such powers as we can achieve to contest drug, terrorist, paedophilia and money-laundering crimes. We intend to do what we can to combat them.
  We also acknowledge that international co-operation is necessary. It is exceptionally important and that is one reason why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary played such a leading role at the Tampere summit in trying to secure such co-operation. The idea that there is

  835
  nothing we can do as events move forward is wrong. We are determined to do what we can. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State for or in connection with the carrying out of his functions under the Act;

(b) any expenditure attributable to arrangements made by the Secretary of State under the Act for the making of contributions towards the costs incurred by persons in complying with requirements under the Act to obtain or disclose any communications data;

(c) any expenditure attributable to arrangements made by the Secretary of State under the Act for the making of contributions towards the costs incurred by persons in complying with notices given under the Act for the disclosure of keys to protected information;

(d) any allowances payable under the Act to the Interception of Communications Commissioner or the Covert Investigations Commissioner; and

(e) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which are payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier this afternoon, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) raised the issue of asylum seekers. Can I ask for your considered view on what has happened since then and, if appropriate, for a ruling from Madam Speaker?
A report suggested that today there would be a parliamentary answer from the Home Office on asylum seekers. At 6.54 pm, the Home Office faxed to my office an answer by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), to a question that was first answered on 6 December in reply to a question from the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). I understand that the Home Office told the Table Office that it had supplied an answer today because the original answer was inaccurate and had had to be corrected. It was not inaccurate; at the time, it was entirely accurate.
What has happened is that the Government have changed their policy and, under the cover of an earlier question and an earlier answer, they have sought to put out an answer with no notice to the House in the normal way. I happen to know that that is because the Home Office failed on Friday to arrange for a question to be tabled which it could answer. Because it did not manage
836
to do that—to use a phrase that has become common to describe business as usual—there was another cock up in the Home Office, and it has had to find a subterfuge.
There is one other matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Let me deal with the first matter before I deal with the other one.
Mr. Hughes: It is linked.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me deal with the first matter, because I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. The Home Secretary is present and will therefore have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not wish him to respond at the moment; it is an issue for another occasion. I have no doubt that Madam Speaker will note the hon. Gentleman's words and that the matter will be looked into. I can give him that assurance.
Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The other matter that arises is that the Home Office has provided a long parliamentary answer. However, it is bizarre in various respects, not least because, in the middle, it turns from being an answer and becomes a press release. It suddenly gives no factual information but starts giving what—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hughes: Will you bear with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot bear with the hon. Gentleman. He is now beginning to express an opinion on these matters. He must relate his point of order to the Chair.
These matters will be considered. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly welcome to approach the Home Secretary—perhaps after these proceedings—and he can lay a complaint before Madam Speaker. That is the best that I can do at the moment. I must get on with the business before us, which the House, and not me, has decided.
Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I would like you or Madam Speaker to consider for a ruling is whether the answer provided is an appropriate parliamentary answer. It moves from reporting facts to describing what is or is not a sensible policy. If you could rule on that, I would be very grateful.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me. I have given the hon. Gentleman a strong hint as to what route he can take.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I raised the issue earlier, I asked Madam Speaker whether she had received a request for a statement because a major U-turn on Government policy was announced in the media this morning. Madam Speaker responded to me that there were a number of questions on the Order Paper that could be answered. I think that it is fair to say that we took that to mean that they were new questions and not

837
an old one that was about to be re-answered. Could I ask Madam Speaker through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether she will reconsider the procedures to see whether she finds them satisfactory?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker will note what the right hon. Lady has said.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  HUMANITARIAN AID AND EXTERNAL CO-OPERATION
  That this House takes note of European Union Document Nos. 10705/99, the Commission's Annual Report on humanitarian aid 1998, 10497/99, the Commission's Annual Report on TACIS 1998, 11203/99, Commission staff working paper: Report for 1998 on the evaluation of external co-operation, and un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum from the Department for International Development dated 5th November 1999 on a Commission Communication on the assessment and future of Community humanitarian activities; and supports the Government's policy of working in partnership with the European Community to improve the management, organisation and effectiveness of development assistance administered by the European Community institutions.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Question agreed to.

CARERS AND DISABLED CHILDREN BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Carers and Disabled Children Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which are payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Question agreed to.

Sickle Cell Anaemia
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
8.17 pm
Jane Griffiths: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate on the important and worrying subject of sickle cell anaemia. The House will know that it is a genetically inherited condition and that it cannot be caught or contracted. The person suffering from it will always be anaemic, but, at times, there may be a crisis in the condition which leads to very severe pain.
The pain is caused by the red blood cells in the affected person becoming sickle shaped—hence the condition's name—and therefore unable to carry sufficient oxygen. One side effect of the condition is that the person suffering from it is immune to malaria because malaria mosquitos cannot attack the sickle-shaped cells. The main causes of the condition going into crisis are many, but they include strenuous exercise and any trauma to the body, such as the contraction of a severe virus, being subject to general anaesthetic, suffering from a fever or pregnancy. The cause of the crisis in sickle cell anaemia that may arise as a result of pregnancy is not fully understood, but it is not uncommon.
Sickle cell trait, which may or may not involve anaemia, is found in about 10 per cent. of people of Afro-Caribbean origin and more frequently in those of Nigerian origin.
Sickle cell C trait, in which people may well have no health problems at all but will pass the trait on to their children, is found in about 2 per cent. of people of Afro-Caribbean origin, and more often in people of Ghanaian origin. Thalassaemia trait, which is related and can cause a sickle cell condition, is found also in about 2 per cent. of people of Afro-Caribbean origin, and more frequently among people of Mediterranean origin.
In all our communities, therefore, it is necessary to understand that the condition is present from birth and often seriously affects children. One of its key symptoms is severe, disabling pain that onsets suddenly. Awareness of the condition is needed among health professionals. Although midwives' handbooks have considerable information about anaemia in general, as it is very common in pregnancy, they have little information specifically about sickle cell anaemia, yet that condition often goes into crisis in women in early pregnancy. No one knows why.
Evidence also shows that, in recent years, when people have visited their doctor or gone to hospital suffering from symptoms relating to sickle cell anaemia, they have been asked, "How long have you had sickle cell condition?" That indicates that not all doctors even know that it is an inherited condition that cannot be contracted. I had an e-mail on that subject today from a woman who said that her partner, a sickle cell sufferer, had been asked that question very recently.
Awareness of sickle cell is badly needed also among education and other professionals. Children who regularly suffer pain and illness are likely to have to miss school and their behaviour may well be affected. Sickle cell can also cause kidney problems, which involve many visits to the lavatory, and teachers can be less than tolerant of that if they are not fully aware of the reason for it. There is a

839
worryingly high incidence of exclusion from school among Afro-Caribbean boys, some of whom may well have sickle cell condition. They may not want to talk to teachers or anybody else about it, but it can cause problems throughout their education.
Teachers these days are routinely made aware of, and told how to deal with, asthma attacks, nut allergies and other severe allergies, which are suffered by an increasing number of primary school pupils. However, they are not routinely made aware of, and told how to understand and deal with, people with sickle cell anaemia, even in areas where the Afro-Caribbean population is high. This is therefore a public health issue that should concern us.
Awareness is needed also among the population at large and those in authority. I had a visit from a constituent whose daughter died when her sickle cell anaemia went into crisis early in her pregnancy. I shall not ask the Minister to look into the case of a particular constituent at this time, but I mention it because it is relevant to the wider issue. My constituent's daughter died from complications of pregnancy brought on, it seems, by sickle cell condition. The insurance company refused to pay out on her policy because, it said, she had a life-threatening condition which she had failed to declare.
I discussed this rather complicated issue, on which the insurance profession does not seem to have a clear policy, with a number of people in the industry. There is a worryingly lack of awareness—I shall not use the word "ignorance"—of the condition. One person working in insurance, but not for the company with which the young woman who died had a policy, said, "I am not surprised that people in the insurance industry do not know about sickle cell because it mostly affects Afro-Caribbean people and not many of them buy houses." That ignorant statement staggered me.
My constituent's daughter did not die from sickle cell anaemia; she had sickle cell. Many people live to a great age with the condition, but have episodes of ill health throughout their life.
Will the Minister look seriously at how we can ensure that all professionals, especially those who work with children and pregnant women, are fully aware of the symptoms and dangers of sickle cell? Constituents and others have told me that professionals do not care and that, because the condition affects mainly ethnic minorities, people do not think that it matters. I know that my hon. Friend will agree that it does matter. In general, health professionals take the condition seriously. The problem is more that those who work with children and pregnant women may not be fully aware of it.
Many older people in ethnic minority communities who have sickle cell were, in the past, heavily prescribed pain-killing drugs for the bouts of pain that come with the condition and, sadly, have become addicted to those drugs. I am reliably informed that doctors no longer prescribe pain-killing drugs in that way, but there are people in their middle years living with addiction to painkillers and the extra problems that it brings on top of their sickle cell condition.
Will the Minister consider those issues seriously and explore ways to ensure that education, health and other professionals are clear about the implications of sickle cell condition for the health of the people with whom they
840
are dealing? They should realise that the condition can be managed and that the people who have it need understanding and help.
8.27 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on choosing to discuss such an important subject in her Adjournment debate. The raising of these issues is particularly timely given the questions that the Department is considering at the moment, which I shall try to cover in my response.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is completely unacceptable to argue that sickle cell anaemia should be taken less seriously, or should be less well understood, simply because it is a problem faced by people from black or ethnic minority communities. That is wholly unacceptable to the Government. We are committed to tackling health inequalities, including those faced by black and ethnic minority communities, which include sickle cell anaemia.
My hon. Friend has raised some very important issues. She is right to say that sickle cell anaemia is an inherited blood disorder affecting haemoglobin, which enables red blood cells to carry oxygen around the body. In sickle cell anaemia, the red blood cells tend to change from the normal flexible round shape to a rigid half-moon or sickle shape, causing a blockage in the blood vessels and preventing the circulation of oxygen. That can lead to tissue damage in, for example, the eyes, the lungs, the spleen and the hips.
As my hon. Friend said, the pain of such a crisis can be intense, and usually lasts a few days. Patients with severe crises may require hospital admission for treatment with painkillers and rehydration. People with sickle cell disorders are also vulnerable to infections such as pneumonia and meningitis.
Sickle cell anaemia primarily affects people of African and Afro-Caribbean descent, although it is also found in those from Mediterranean, middle eastern and Asian backgrounds. There are more than 6,000 people with sickle cell disorders in the UK. In addition, around 120,000 people carry the trait for sickle cell anaemia, which means that they may pass on a gene for the disorder to their children. Carriers usually remain healthy, but it is important that their trait is recognised as they may require more oxygen in certain situations such as undergoing a general anaesthetic or participating in activities such as scuba diving or high altitude sports.
Generally, the disorder is managed at home: children may take antibiotics throughout childhood, and mild crises can be treated at home with painkillers. My hon. Friend is right to raise the question of education. Education is needed for those with the disorder, and their families and carers, to minimise risk factors that can trigger a crisis, such as sudden temperature change or dehydration. The prognosis for a child who is diagnosed with the disorder today continues to improve.
In 1994, the Standing Medical Advisory Committee set up a working party which produced a report on sickle cell, thalassaemia and other haemoglobinopathies. The report was widely distributed and provided information to enable the national health service to achieve the best possible care.

841
It gave a focus for further debate, development and collaboration. Several initiatives have followed from the report.
Following wide consultation, the cards that are carried by patients who have been tested for sickle cell anaemia and other haemoglobinopathies have been redesigned and simplified. In December last year, the Department of Health issued a multi-purpose single card to replace the three previously used, as recommended in the SMAC report. The card provides the result of the test. Copies are available free of charge to haematology departments for issue to patients.
The card speeds up the process for patients presenting at the accident and emergency department in a crisis, as it provides details of their disorder and treatment. It is also helpful to other health care workers in identifying people with sickle cell disorder or those who carry the trait. For example, midwives should find the card valuable in directing genetic counselling for those at risk and dentists will want to consider the need for additional oxygen.
The SMAC report also raised issues about counselling and screening. It is important, for example, that prospective parents understand the risk of their children being affected. If both parents have the condition, their children will inherit it. If one parent has the disorder and the other carries the trait, the probability is that half their children will inherit the disorder and half will carry the trait. Preconceptual and antenatal counselling aim to allow parents from high-risk groups to make properly informed choices.
Promoting the well-being of children and young people with sickle cell anaemia extends beyond the NHS and social services. Joint working with the Department for Education and Employment is absolutely essential. We recognise that ensuring access to effective education is a vital part of looking after the long-term health of any child with a chronic medical disorder. Our two Departments have clear joint guidance on supporting pupils with medical needs in schools.
Support also includes fostering a spirit of inclusion by improving the awareness of teachers and other pupils. One key tool, which we have only just begun to introduce, is the healthy schools programme. It has a family of websites, known collectively as "Wired for Health", which provides online access to health information. Through the Health Education Authority, we have been working with the Sickle Cell Society to provide accurate and appropriate information targeted at different groups in the education setting.
"Mind, Body and Soul", the website aimed at 14 to 16-year-olds, includes information prepared by the society. It is now developing text for the new site for 11 to 13-year-olds, which will go live at the end of this month. After that, we expect to put information geared specifically to the needs of teachers on the main teacher website, "Wired for Health". My hon. Friend is right to identify the serious issues that may arise if teachers or other pupils do not sufficiently understand the problems faced by those with sickle cell anaemia.
The healthy schools programme has also established the national healthy schools standard: an accreditation process for the local education and health partnerships. The whole-school approach promoted by the standard includes
842
provision of support for pupils' health conditions. That complements guidance on supporting pupils with medical needs.
Unfortunately, we know that children and young people with sickle cell anaemia will sometimes miss school because of their health problems. We are reviewing, with the DFEE, our guidance on the education of sick children. We aim to issue draft guidance for consultation later this year. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's points are taken into account.
The main subject that my hon. Friend raises is education about the disorder. Education is an essential factor in the effective management and treatment of sickle cell anaemia. It is vital that we provide at-risk communities, patients, their families and health care professionals at all levels with proper information about sickle cell anaemia, the risks and the consequences for those who suffer from it.
We have been working with the haemoglobinopathy societies to draw up proposals for an awareness campaign targeted at areas with high densities of people at risk of haemoglobinopathies. The proposals are under consideration in my Department. Possible developments include a major mass media exercise directed at Afro-Caribbean and Asian communities, through specialist media catering for black and minority ethnic groups and the general media.
The campaign proposals involve voluntary organisations working in the field, four of which are concerned with sickle cell anaemia and research, as well bodies such as schools, probation services and employers, accident and emergency departments and primary care teams. We need to promote awareness of haemoglobinopathy disorders and the options for screening, prevention and treatment. That means developing resource materials for health professionals to inform future good practice. It also means raising awareness of the disorder among statutory bodies and policy makers.
The partnership element of this campaign is extremely important, with co-operative working by voluntary bodies and feedback from patients and communities helping to shape future services. The expert patient concept is especially suitable for a condition such as sickle cell anaemia and will be invaluable in improving management of the disorder and outcomes for patients and their families.
My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important that health care professionals are well informed about the disorder so that they can give appropriate treatment. Notification about the new haemoglobinopathy cards was directed to all GPs and to haematology units, maternity, accident and emergency and dental departments, health visitors, dental officers and counsellors.
The training of doctors is designed to equip them to deal with the problems they might encounter both in hospital and in general practice. Learning must be life long and cannot cease at the end of formal training. To provide the best possible service to their patients, doctors should keep up to date with advances in patient care and continually review and improve their knowledge, skills and abilities. The English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting approves a post registration study programme on the care and management of adults and children with sickle cell,

843
thalassaemia and related disorders. It is designed to increase the knowledge and skills of nurses to enable them to meet the health care needs of those with sickle cell and their families.
Hospital trusts serving communities with a high incidence of haemoglobinopathies often have specific protocols for their staff to ensure that they can recognise sickle cell anaemia and are able to help patients quickly, especially with pain relief. We need to ensure that best practice is extended to all trusts that deal with patients who suffer from sickle cell anaemia. The haemoglobinopathy societies have informed us that the facilities for treatment and counselling are often under-utilised. We need to make sure that people are able to make use of the services provided.
I would like to take this opportunity to say that voluntary organisations play an absolutely vital role in this field. We are very grateful for their help with the proposed health awareness campaign currently being discussed, and for the Sickle Cell Society's work for "Wired for Health". Those organisations provide information, advice and support for those affected by
844
sickle cell anaemia—patients and their families—and carry out research into the disorder. My Department recognises their success in spreading knowledge and understanding of the disorder, and we provide practical support, including financial assistance, to help them to continue their work.
Sickle cell anaemia is a condition that we take extremely seriously. My hon. Friend's points about raising awareness were well made and are well taken. I hope that I have assured her that these issues are under active consideration. I will ensure that her views are taken into account when final decisions are made shortly about possible campaign proposals for raising awareness of sickle cell anaemia.
Improving treatment and advice is critical for the people involved, and for tackling the health inequalities faced by black and minority ethnic communities, which we in the Department take extremely seriously. I thank my hon. Friend for providing the opportunity for a useful and informative debate on an important subject.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Nine o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Child Pedestrians (Accidents)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many child pedestrians were(a) killed and (b) injured by motor vehicles in the City of Leeds in each year since 1990. [112045]

  Mr. Hill
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Child pedestrian casualties in accidents involving motor vehicles, City of Leeds: 1990–1998

  Year

  Killed

  Injured

  All

  1990

  5

  354

  359

  1991

  4

  298

  302

  1992

  1

  335

  336

  1993

  1

  293

  294

  1994

  2

  306

  308

  1995

  0

  282

  282

  1996

  2

  307

  309

  1997

  5

  283

  288

  1998

  2

  273

  275

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if local planning authorities are required to give areas of outstanding natural beauty an equal level of protection to national parks. [112466]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 2 March 2000]: The then Countryside Commission presented its advice to Government on the future care of National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) in 1998. This included recommendations on planning policy guidance regarding AONBs. We announced our response on National Parks on 29 September 1999 and we will announce our proposals for a package of measures for AONBs when we have finalised our detailed consideration.

  Water Company Pensions
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in respect of the application of the Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment etc.) Regulations to staff affected by the termination by water companies of Sewerage Agency arrangements; and what response he will make. [113344]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment etc.) Regulations 1999 are intended to provide private sector employers, bidding for Local 454W
  Authority contracts under Best Value, with an option of access to the Local Government Pension Scheme so that transferring employees can retain their membership of that scheme while they are engaged delivering outsourced local authority services. I have so far received some 24 representations about the future pension status of employees in local authorities who work on the delivery of privatised water company services through agency agreements established under the terms of the relevant Water Acts. The scale of these agreements, and the alternative pension arrangements available to those employed under them, are being established with the co-operation of the United Kingdom Steering Committee on local government pensions. In the light of that exercise, I will consider carefully the appropriate next steps.

  Ladbroke Grove Rail Accident
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the signalling system involved in the Ladbroke Grove rail accident was designed and engineered on the assumption that all trains using the system would be equipped with automatic train protection. [112550]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 3 March 2000]: The Health and Safety Executive has informed me that it was not designed and engineered on this assumption.

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 13W, on peat compost, if he will list the locations of the gardens of his Department including executive agencies and Government offices for the regions. [113347]

  Mr. Hill
  The Department does not keep central records of the locations of gardens on our estate. The information requested is however being obtained from each of our property centres and will be forwarded to my hon. Friend later this month.

  Environment Agency Charges
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the proposed increases in charges by the Environment Agency; and if he will make a statement. [113289]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency received 42 responses to its recent consultation exercise on its charging proposals for 2000–01. The Agency's consultation papers stated that it would forward copies of these responses to the DETR. These have now been received and the Agency's proposals are being considered.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the rating of plant and machinery in combined heat and power schemes; and if he will make a statement. [113426]
  455W
  Ms Armstrong
  Last year we published draft regulations which determine which items of plant and machinery are assessed for business rates. The regulations reflect the recommendations of the second Wood Committee. In particular, generating plant and machinery belonging to the power industry will benefit from a "tools of the trade" exemption although such items which are in the nature of a building or structure will continue to be rateable.

  We have now decided that plant and machinery used to generate electricity (such as turbines and engines) in all Good Quality Combined Heat and Power (CHP) schemes, including those used in wider industry, should benefit from this exemption.

  De-rating such plant and machinery in CHP installations will ensure that those items are treated equally across all sectors. It also illustrates our continued support for the increased take up of CHP technology which can bring considerable environmental and economic benefits.

  We will introduce the exemption from 1 April 2001 when the CHP Quality Assurance programme for assessing the quality of all types of CHP will be fully operational. The programme will determine the eligibility of CHP schemes for a range of benefits including exemption from the Climate Change Levy. The rating exemption for CHP plant and machinery will require a change in secondary legislation which we will publish in draft later in the year.

  Transport Costs
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the recent RAC survey on the relative costs to families of using their car and using public transport; and if he will make a statement. [113118]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport was pleased to have provided the foreword to the RAC Report on Motoring 2000 which offered a useful insight into what motorists think are the relative costs of car and public transport. As the report showed there was considerable uncertainty among motorists about the full cost of their travel by car, and of the real costs of public transport. A more accurate picture of actual costs for households is given in table 1.15 "Household expenditure on transport: UK 1987–1997 in Transport statistics in Great Britain; 1999 Edition". We are currently undertaking research to probe what impact costs, both actual and perceived, have on people's travel decisions.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when work will begin on the(a) A2/A282 Dartford Improvement, (b) A2 Bean to Tolgate widening, (c) Tolgate to Cobham widening and (d) M60, junctions 5 to 8 widening. [113104]

  Mr. Hill
  The A2 Bean to Tolgate Widening, A2 Tolgate to Cobham Widening and A2/A282 Dartford 456W
  Improvement schemes have yet to complete their statutory procedures. The start of works dates will therefore depend on the satisfactory completion of these procedures.

  We currently plan to award the construction contract for the M60 Junction 5 to 8 Widening in 2003–04. The precise timing of the start of work will be a matter for the contractor.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors underlay the decision not to include(a) the widening of the M25 between junctions 12 and 15, (b) the Al(M) Wetherby to Walshford road scheme, (c) the A46 Newark to Lincoln improvement and (d) the A63 Selby bypass in the list of road schemes planned to start in 2001–02. [113100]

  Mr. Hill
  Owing to the time needed to complete the necessary contract procedures, construction of the M25 Junctions 12 and 15 Widening scheme could not take place any earlier than 2002–03.

  The A1(M) Wetherby to Walshford road scheme is to be constructed as part of a Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) contract. The amount of work needed to prepare the contract documents and undertake the subsequent procurement process means that the contract cannot be awarded before 2002–03.

  The contracts for the A46 Newark to Lincoln Improvement scheme and the A63 Selby Bypass are programmed to be awarded in the financial year 2001–02.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what impact the road schemes announced in the recent local transport settlement will have on the Government's objective of reducing traffic growth; and if he will make a statement. [113098]

  Mr. Hill
  In order to tackle congestion and pollution, the Government want to see a reduction in road traffic growth, and an absolute reduction in road traffic where its damage is greatest. The schemes will, on their own, have a very small impact on total traffic growth. However, the local bypasses will help relieve communities of inappropriate traffic and all of the schemes form part of wider local strategies to improve choice and provide better alternatives to the car, thereby reducing traffic growth.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the start dates and completion dates of the 37 schemes on the Government's list of targeted trunk road and motorway improvements. [113117]

  Mr. Hill
  Of the 37 schemes in the Targeted Programme of Improvements, 26 have completed their statutory procedures. I have listed the financial years in which we currently plan to award construction contracts for these schemes.

  Because Design and Build contracts will be used, the precise timing of the start of works will be a matter for the contractor. The construction periods will depend on individual contracts.

  The start dates for the other 11 schemes will depend on the outcome of the remaining statutory procedures.

  457W

  Scheme

  2000–01

  A1

  Willowburn-Debwick

  A6

  Great Glen Bypass

  A27

  Polegate Bypass

  A41

  Aston Clinton Bypass

  A43

  Silverstone Bypass

  A43

  Whitfield Turn-Brackley Hatch Impovement

  A1033

  Hedon Road, Hull Improvement

  A6

  Clapham Bypass

  A11

  Roudham Health to Attleborough

  A43

  M40-B4031 Improvement

  A66

  Stainburn and Great Clifton Bypass

  A500

  Bassford/Hough/Shavington Bypass

  A650

  Bingley Relief Road

  2001–02

  A5

  Nessclife Bypass

  A6

  Rothwell-Desborough Bypass

  A6

  Rushden and Hingham Ferrers Bypass

  A10

  Wadesmill-Colliers End Bypass

  A21

  Lamberhurst Bypass

  A23

  Coulsdon Relief Road

  A46

  Newark-Lincoln Improvement

  A63

  Selby Bypass

  A120

  Stansted-Braintree

  2002–03

  M25

  J 12–15 Widening

  2003–04

  M60

  J 5–8 Widening

  We propose to take forward A1(M) Ferrybridge to Hook Moor and A1(M) Wetherby to Walshford under Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) contracts, which we currently expect to award in 2002–03.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when work will begin on the(a) A249 Iwade-Queenborough Improvement, (b) A1(M) Wetherby to Walshford road scheme, (c) A1(M) Ferrybridge to Hook Moor road scheme, (d) M25, junction 12 to junction 15 widening, (e) A23 Coulsdon relief road scheme and (f) A21 Lamberhurst bypass. [113105]

  Mr. Hill
  The A249 Iwade-Queenborough went to Public Inquiry last September and the start of works date will depend on the outcome of the statutory procedures.

  We propose to take forward A1(M) Wetherby to Walshford and the A1(M) Ferrybridge to Hook Moor schemes under Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) contracts which we currently expect to award in 2002–03.

  We currently plan to award construction contracts for both the A23 Coulsdon Inner Relief Road and A21 Lamberhurst Bypass in 2001–02. The precise timing of the start of works will depend on the Contractor.

  The M25 J12–15 Widening scheme is due to start in 2002–03. The precise date will depend on the outcome of the necessary procurement processes.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors underlay the decision not to include(a) the M60, junctions 5 to 8 widening and (b) the A1 Ferrybridge to Hook Moor road scheme in the list of road schemes planned to start in 2001–02. [113099]
  458W
  Mr. Hill
  Construction of the M60 Junction 5–8 widening could not be finished in time to avoid affecting the transport arrangements for the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester. It was therefore agreed that the start construction would be delayed until the Games had finished. Construction will start in 2003–04.

  The A1 Ferrybridge to Hook Moor road scheme is to be constructed as part of a Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) contract. The amount of work needed to prepare the contract documents and undertake the subsequent procurement process means that the contract cannot be awarded before 2002–03.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations his Department carried out before the approval of the trunk road schemes planned to start in 2000–01. [113101]

  Mr. Hill
  Shortly after elected the Government undertook a year-long strategic review of the roads programme in fulfillment of our manifesto promise. This review, unlike previous roads reviews, included extensive consultation at regional and national level. Around 14,000 responses were received to the consultation document. The results of the Review were announced on 31 July 1998.

  Road Studies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when the report of the study of road problems(a) in the Hull area, (b) in South East Manchester, (c) in the Tyneside area, (d) around Hastings, (e) around the London orbital motorway, (f) at Deeside Park Junction and (g) between Southampton and Folkestone is to be published; and if he will make a statement; [113102]

  (2) when the reports of the study of road problems on the (a) A3 at Hindhead, (b) South and West Yorkshire motorway box and (c) A1 between Bramham and Boston be published; and if he will make a statement. [113103]

  Mr. Hill
  We expect final reports for the studies currently under way to be published as follows:

  Areas

  Access to Hastings Multi-Modal Study

  Summer 2000

  A1 Bramham to Barton Study

  By Autumn 2000

  A3 Hindhead Study

  End 2000

  London Orbital Multi-Modal Study

  Autumn 2001

  Deeside Park Junctions Study

  Spring 2001

  Tyneside Area Multi-Modal Study

  Spring 2001

  South East Manchester Multi-Modal Study

  Spring 2001

  South and West Yorkshire Motorway Box

  Autumn 2001

  Multi-Modal Study

  Autumn 2001

  Both the Hull Multi-Modal Study and Southampton to Folkestone Multi-Modal Study are in the second tranche of our study programme. Preparatory work on these studies will begin later this year. We anticipate that it will take some 12 to 15 months to complete the Hull study and between 18 and 24 months to complete the Southampton to Folkestone Study.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) trunk roads that are carried by a bridge, or which pass through a tunnel, of at least 600 m in length and (b) the dates on which such bridges and tunnels are set to be renewed. [113114]

  Mr. Hill
  In England there are 33 bridges and three tunnels with a length greater than 600 m, carrying 21 different trunk roads. This figure excludes trunk roads transferring to the Greater London Authority in July 2000 as these will be de-trunked.

  All these structures have long residual lives and there are no plans for their renewal in the foreseeable future. There is an ongoing programme of works to ensure all structures remain safe and serviceable.

  The Secretary of State has made it clear that, in the context of the Transport Bill, he does not have any plans to charge on existing structures that are not already tolled.

  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to the hon. Member with a list and place a copy in the Library.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Bernard Jenkin, dated 6 March 2000:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Keith Hill, has asked me to write in response to your written PQ about trunk road structures of at least 600m in length.
  I attach a list of those structures. Please contact Gerry Hayter in our Structures Section (telephone 0171 921 4789) if you require any further information on this subject.
  The table below lists English trunk road bridges over 600m in length1.

  Road/Chainage

  Bridge name

  Comments

  A10/35.60

  Kings Meads Viaduct

  —

  A14/193.80

  Orwell Bridge

  —

  A19/131.50

  Tees Viaduct

  —

  A38/52.60A

  Marsh Mills Viaduct E/B

  —

  A38/52.60B

  Marsh Mills Viaduct W/B

  —

  A38(M)/387.2

  Aston Expressway EB

  —

  A39/182.40

  River Torridge

  —

  A631/0.30

  Tinsley Viaduct, Lower

  2—

  M1/260.1

  Tinsley Viaduct, Upper

  2—

  M2/47.00

  Medway Bridge

  —

  M4/12.70–15.60

  Elevated Section

  —

  M5/0.00

  Rayhall Bents SB3

  —

  M5/1.00–1.60

  Wigmore Bents3

  —

  M5/5.60–7.90

  Oldbury Bents3

  —

  M5/142.40

  Avonmouth Bridge

  —

  M5/194.10

  Huntworth Viaduct

  —

  M5/258.60

  Exe Viaduct

  —

  M6/178.4–182.8

  Bromford Bents3

  —

  M6/183.0–183.9

  Gravelly Hill Bents3

  —

  M6/187.2–188.0

  Thornbridge Bents3

  —

  M6/192.6–193.4

  Rayhall Bents3

  —

  M6/194.8–196.1

  Bescott Bents3

  —

  M6/300.90A

  Thelwall Viaduct (1963)

  —

  M6/300.90B

  Thelwall New Viaduct (1995)

  —

  M32/2.60

  Eastville Viaduct

  —

  M50/5.40

  Queenshill Viaduct

  —

  M53/8.40

  Bidston Moss Viaduct (West)

  —

  M56/43.50

  Weaver Viaduct

  —

  M62/161.60

  Ouse Bridge

  —

  M63/2.20

  Barton High Level

  Renamed M60

  1 Length is the cumulative span length taken from the Highways Agency's National Structures Database (NATS) rounded to the nearest metre.

  460W
  2 The A63 Tinsley Viaduct and M1 Tinsley viaduct is a 'double-decker' structure carrying two trunk roads.

  3 Elevated Road

  Note:

  Bridges due to be transferred to the Greater London Authority in July 2000 have been excluded.
  The table below lists English trunk road bridges over 600m in length1 not operated by the Highways Agency.

  Road/Chainage

  Bridge name

  Comments

  M4

  Second Severn Crossing

  Tolled

  M48

  Severn Bridge

  Tolled

  A2822

  Queen Elizabeth II (Dartford)

  Tolled

  1 Length is not taken from NATS

  2 The M25 is not continuous and the sections crossing the Thames at Dartford are correctly called the A282.

  Note:

  M48 is due to be renamed as part of the M4

  The table below lists English trunk road tunnels over 600m in length.

  Road/Chainage

  Tunnel name

  Comments

  A2821

  Dartford Tunnel

  Twin bore tunnel

  M25

  Holmesdale Tunnel

  —

  A1(M)

  Hatfield Tunnel

  —

  1 The M25 is not continuous and the sections crossing the Thames at Dartford are correctly called the A282

  London Elections
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the location of polling stations for early voting for the GLA and London mayoral elections. [113112]

  Mr. Hill
  We are providing for one early voting polling station for each London borough with less than 150,000 voters, and for two stations in every other borough. The exact locations of the polling stations is a matter for the boroughs themselves. They will be listed in an Order which I intend to lay before the House shortly.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the persons to whom media briefings were given by Government press spokesmen on the subject of rail safety on Monday 21 February, prior to the Deputy Prime Minister's statement on Tuesday 22 February. [113110]

  Mr. Hill
  None.

  Rail Rolling Stock
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the value of new rail rolling stock that is waiting for safety approval; and if he will make a statement. [113113]

  Mr. Hill
  The value of rolling stock currently awaiting safety case approval is in the order of £150 million. I expect the industry to re-double their efforts to achieve safety approval and deliver these trains into service at the earliest opportunity.

  Mr. Alan Donnelly
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations in relation to specific planning applications in the last 24 months his Department has received from Mr. Alan Donnelly prior to his resignation as a Member of the European Parliament. [113122]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department has on record one representation from Alan Donnelly during this period. This was received in April 1999 and concerned a possible change of land use for the Vaux Brewery site in Sunderland.

  Rough Sleepers Unit
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the cost of the Head of the Rough Sleepers Unit and her department in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [113124]

  Ms Armstrong
  The administration budget for the Rough Sleepers Unit in 1999–2000 is £1.013 million and in 2000–01 £1.297 million. This excludes accommodation and other support costs which are apportioned centrally.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what objectives and targets have been set for the head of the Rough Sleepers Unit. [113123]

  Ms Armstrong
  The key objective of the Head of the RSU is to deliver the Government's target to reduce rough sleeping to as near zero as possible and by at least two thirds by 2002.

  Windows
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to require planning permission for a window to be inserted in an existing house wall which faces a window in a separate house and is less than 20 metres away; and if he will make a statement. [113183]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 grants a general planning permission for a range of minor works of development to dwellinghouses, including the insertion of windows. In granting permitted development rights, we have to strike a balance between giving freedoms to individual householders to improve their homes, and protecting the amenity of neighbouring properties. We are not aware of any significant problems in the exercise of permitted development rights relating to windows and therefore have no plans to change these at the present time. We will, however, continue to monitor any representations received on this issue.

  Renewable Energy
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to promote a strategic approach to planning for renewable energy development; and if he will make a statement. [113479]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A positive, strategic approach to planning for renewable energy is essential to help to deliver the Government's targets and goals for renewable 462W
  energy and climate change, which are central to achieving sustainable development, while continuing to protect the landscape. This was underlined in "New and Renewable Energy: Prospects for the 21st Century: Conclusions in Response to the Public Consultation", published by my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, on 1 February 2000.

  In order to promote this strategic approach from the regional level downwards, the Government Offices for the Regions are initiating work to prepare regional assessments and targets for renewable energy provision based upon—and, where necessary, updating—existing resource studies. On 9 February 2000, DETR published "Guidance on Preparing Regional Sustainable Development Frameworks". The guidance indicated that the Government hope that the frameworks will draw upon this work and elaborate a regional approach to renewable energy, including regional targets which flow from the assessments of each region's capacity to generate electricity from a range of different sources. The Government would like to see frameworks in place in all regions by the end of 2000.

  The frameworks will work alongside Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) and Regional Development Agencies' Economic Strategies in promoting sustainable development. Thus we envisage RPG taking forward in land-use terms a region's strategy for delivering renewable energy targets by defining broad locations for renewable energy development and setting criteria to help local authorities select suitable sites in their plans. We would encourage regional planning bodies to set targets in RPG, where sensible to do so, for the structure plan and unitary development plan areas within the region consistent with the regional targets provided by the regional sustainable development frameworks. Advice on this will be set out in the final version of the revised "Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) note 11: Regional Planning". This will be published shortly.

  Together with the national planning policy guidance in "PPG 22: Renewable Energy", RPG—as taken forward through structure plans and Part I unitary development plans—will provide a strategic framework for policies and proposals for renewable energy development in local plans, including the identification in those plans of suitable sites. This, in turn, will feed through to decisions on individual planning applications.

  More positive planning at regional and local levels will contribute to greater public familiarity with, and acceptance of, prospective renewable energy developments. It remains important, however, for operators to prepare the ground with local authorities, environmental organisations and local people before formal planning applications are submitted and to develop proposals in consultation with them.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  M25 Murder
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Solicitor-General if, following the recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the M25 murder case, he will take steps to expedite the appeal procedure for similar cases. [112628]
  463W
  The Solicitor-General
  This case was referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It will be for the Court of Appeal to decide whether in due course the convictions are to be quashed. I have no power to expedite such hearings, nor am I aware of any other similar cases awaiting a hearing in the domestic courts.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Solicitor-General what criteria the Director of the Serious Fraud Office is required to follow in exercising his discretion not to institute criminal proceedings in return for the person concerned giving evidence for the prosecution; what administrative procedures must be carried out before the exercise of his discretion, in particular if he is required to carry out inquiries into the antecedents of such a person; how many times the Director has exercised his discretion since 1995; if the prohibition against convicted criminals being able financially to benefit by their crimes extends to such a person; and if he will make a statement. [112407]

  The Solicitor-General
  In deciding whether to prosecute, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office applies the evidential and public interest tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Because fraud cases present particular problems of complexity it is sometimes necessary for investigators to have the assistance of one of the participants in a fraud in order to break it. Usually such a participant is on the periphery of the wrongdoing. In such cases the Director will consider all the information available at the time (including any information as to the financial or other benefits received as a result of the participation in the fraud) and may consult the Law Officers for advice. The Director will always consult the Law Officers before granting a formal written immunity from prosecution. [If the offence does not relate to serious or complex fraud the Director will seek the assistance of the Director of Public Prosecutions.] The number of times the Director has exercised his or her discretion since 1995 cannot be ascertained without incurring disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he has had with ministerial colleagues in the Department of Social Security regarding the administrative costs stakeholder pensions to small business with more than five employees. [111807]

  Ms Hewitt
  Official from the DTI were involved in the consultation on stakeholder pensions and continue to be involved in the communications working group. In addition, a consultative panel which included employer representatives, was formed to discuss all issues relating to the scheme, including compliance costs. Concerns over burdens on business contributed to the decision to introduce an exemption for small business with less than five employees. However, we are aware that there will be administrative responsibilities for those businesses with five employees or more, and officials form the newly formed Small Business Service (SBS) are in discussion 464W
  with their DSS counterparts to consider what can be done to minimise the requirements of the administrative process.

  Ilisu Dam
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment the Government have made of Balfour Beatty's suitability as an applicant for ECGD support in relation to the Ilisu Dam Project. [112416]

  Mr. Caborn
  Balfour Beatty's application for support in respect of Ilisu is being considered by ECGD. ECGD is satisfied that they have the financial and technical competence to carry out their role in the Ilisu project, and have no reason to regard them as ineligible for ECGD support.

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what account will be taken of past and present disputes between Turkey and neighbouring states over water resources in making the decision about ECGD support for the Ilisu Dam. [112787]

  Mr. Caborn
  As my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has raised the issue of downstream flow as one of the four areas of concern we have about the Ilisu project. We are continuing to monitor developments on all four issues.

  Lesotho Highlands Project
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of Balfour Beatty's membership of the Lesotho Highlands Project Contractors' consortium. [112415]

  Mr. Caborn
  Allegations of corruption have been made against the Lesotho Highlands Project Contractors' consortium, of which Balfour Beatty was a member, and are the subject of court proceedings in South Africa. Balfour Beatty have said that there is no truth in the allegations.

  It will be for the Courts to decide, and their verdict is expected later this year. Meanwhile, the members of the consortium must enjoy the presumption of innocence.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received a copy of the report prepared by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. for Lloyd's Register Quality Assurance Ltd.; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [112567]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have not received a copy of the report. This is a matter between BNFL and Lloyd's Register Quality Assurance.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry If he will make a statement in respect of the supply of MOX fuel by BNFL to Germany. [112032]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: I understand that BNFL has reviewed all the records for quality assurance checks carried out on MOX fuel supplied to its German customer, Preussen Electra. In the case of the record for one of the pellet lots concerned, BNFL found that in 1996 a set of data collected from a secondary manual sample check of pellet diameter

  465W
  measurements, which had already been confirmed as acceptable, was inadvertently deleted from a computer. The lost data were replaced with data collected from the same check carried out on a previous pellet lot. BNFL considers that all other secondary pellet diameter checks for MOX produced for its German customer have been properly carried out and recorded. The MOX supplied by BNFL has been operating satisfactorily in the reactor in Germany since 1997. The HSE states in its report that it is satisfied that the fuel manufactured in the MOX Demonstration Facility will be safe in use. This view is based on the robustness of the fuel manufacturing process and the totality of the checks made on the key parameters. However, BNFL's customer has decided to shut the unit down and replace the fuel assemblies concerned.

  Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the total of payments made to date to NACODS South Wales area as reimbursement of costs incurred in the compensation claims for(a) chest disease and (b) vibration white finger. [112481]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government make no payments direct to NACODS South Wales area.

  Under the arrangements agreed between the DTI and the Claimants' Solicitor's Groups for chest diseases and vibration white finger, the Government pay any costs or reasonable disbursements falling due direct to the solicitors. Any arrangement whereby Unions recover sums from the solicitors is strictly a matter for the parties concerned.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the compensation that will be paid out over the next three years to miners and miners' widows in respect of(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK. [112961]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Over the next three years we currently estimate that compensation will be paid as follows:

  (a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema

  (i) £53 million in Scotland

  (ii) £699 million in the UK (including Scotland)

  (b) Vibration white finger

  (i) £47 million in Scotland

  (ii) £760 million in the UK (including Scotland).

  These estimates are subject to considerable change. Firmer figures will become available only once significant numbers of claimants for both diseases have been through the full assessment procedures.

  Balkans (Regeneration)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to publicise the opportunities for British firms to take part in the regeneration of(a) Kosovo and (b) other Balkan states. [112960]

  Mr. Caborn
  On the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, British Trade International set up the joint Government/private sector Kosovo Taskforce to co-ordinate and promote the UK's response to the reconstruction opportunities in the province. The 466W
  Taskforce has done much to publicise the opportunities for British companies to play a part in the regeneration of Kosovo. Indeed, arising out of the Taskforce's activities, a consortium of British companies, with financial support from British Trade International, was awarded the concession to manage Kosovo's power sector over the seven months from last October; this is helping ensure that the people of Kosovo get through the harsh winter. Through help from the Taskforce, another British consortium was awarded the contract for the first phase of the upgrading of Pristina airport.

  During my visit to Kosovo last October, it was clear that the good will arising out of both contracts should help UK companies compete for other business, not only in these two sectors but also in other areas of activity. This will be particularly important as Kosovo moves into the next phase of recovery, with strategic infrastructure projects, designed to help secure its longer term future, being put out to competitive tender by the international agencies. I am confident that I will see UK companies making even more progress when I again visit Kosovo in June. British Trade International has posted an official to the British Office in Pristina on a short-term basis to draw the attention of appropriate companies to opportunities in Kosovo and to assist those seeking to capitalise on them; resources have been secured for the next financial year to fund this post for the longer term.

  To keep the business community abreast of commercial developments in Kosovo, British Trade International has set up a website: its address is www.brittrade.com/kosovo/. This includes information on the activities of the Taskforce and the international funding agencies—including information on projects they are funding. Kosovo has been an early and demanding test of British Trade International; it has been widely praised by the private sector for all its initiatives there.

  Many companies regard Kosovo as the springboard for entry to the wider South East Europe region (the Balkans) which presents significantly more business opportunities; these are highlighted on the Kosovo website. Through promotional events such as seminars, support for trade fairs and missions, British Trade International continues to draw the attention of UK companies to commercial opportunities generally in all the markets of the region.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of working women in England and Wales who have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. [112916]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  It is estimated that some 1.5 million workers in England and Wales became entitled to higher pay as a direct result of the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999. The Low Pay Commission report estimates that around two-thirds of the beneficiaries are women.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the unrecovered loans issued by the Export Credits Guarantee Department(a) between 1979 and April 1997 and (b) since May

  467W
  1997 which are attributable to defence related contracts, including details of (i) equipment, (ii) country and (iii) financial amount. [112959]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information readily available is as follows:(a) the value of claims paid by ECGD in respect of defence-related contracts under guarantees issued between the mid 1980's and April 1997 and which remain outstanding for recovery as at 29 February 2000 is as follows:

  £ million

  Country

  Value of claims outstanding

  Algeria

  98

  Egypt

  46

  Indonesia

  169

  Jordan

  253

  Kenya

  16

  The equipment supplied under these contracts includes aircraft, artillery, naval vessels, vehicles, communications and ancillary equipment.
  (b) there have been no claims paid by ECGD in respect of defence related contracts under guarantees issued since May 1997.

  Post Offices (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the number and location of crown and sub-post offices in the Easington constituency and the amount of Benefit Agency work carried out by each post office as a percentage of its business. [112805]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that in October 1999 there were 23 post offices, all sub-post offices, within the Easington parliamentary constituency. Of these, 19 derive 40 per cent. or more of their work load from the Benefits Agency. It is not Post Office policy to identify individual offices by the volumes and nature of business transacted.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made in meeting the requirements of the European Commission for the securing of public sector funding for the Objective 1 programme for Merseyside. [112940]

  Mr. Caborn
  It is for the Merseyside partnership to satisfy the European Commission's requirements for approval of the Single Programming Document for the Merseyside Objective 1 programme. However, my Department, other Government Departments and the Government Office for the North West are assisting the Merseyside partnership in negotiations with the Commission and in other ways, notably identifying match funding.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to co-ordinate Government activities relating to the Objective 1 programme for Merseyside and those of other Objective 1 areas. [112941]
  468W
  Mr. Caborn
  Responsibility for the Merseyside Objective 1 rests primarily with the Merseyside partnership. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions leads for the Government on regional policy in England. My Department is in contact with the three English Objective 1 areas and is assisting in negotiations with the European Commission as well as co-ordinating the response of all the Government Departments concerned with central government match funding for the English Objective 1 programmes.

  Flower Imports
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of flowers imported into the UK from non-EU sources in each year since 1990. [113028]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information is given in the table.

  UK Imports of bulbs, tubers, etc; and cut flowers from non-EU countries

  £000

  Year

  Bulbs, tubers etc

  Cut flowers and buds

  Total

  1990

  184

  40,849

  41,033

  1991

  205

  49,372

  49,576

  1992

  217

  54,784

  55,001

  1993

  217

  57,864

  58,081

  1994

  325

  63,089

  63,414

  1995

  213

  68,105

  68,317

  1996

  349

  72,271

  72,620

  1997

  489

  71,057

  71,545

  1998

  439

  64,825

  65,265

  1999

  342

  66,699

  67,040

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HM Customs and Excise

  21st Century Faxes Ltd.
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will implement measures to deal with the activities of 21st Century Faxes Ltd. [113038]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is not the practice of my Department to discuss the affairs of individual companies. If the hon. Member has information he considers should be drawn to my attention, I would be happy to receive this.

  International Price Comparisons
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 50W, on international price comparisons, which national Sunday newspapers were not represented at the briefing session on 11 February. [113021]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 3 March 2000]: Representatives of all the national Sunday newspapers were invited to attend. Our records show that representatives of the Sunday Mirror and the Sunday People did not attend.

  Telephone Service Disruption
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what inquiries(a) he and (b) Oftel have started into the major faults in computers which disrupted 0845 telephone number access, NHS Direct Services and

  469W
  other services in the week beginning 21 February; and what action is to be taken to ensure that the telecommunications infrastructure is not disrupted again. [113178]

  Ms Hewitt
  The regulation of telecommunications operators is the responsibility of Oftel. Oftel has asked BT for a full report of this network failure and for details of the measures BT will put in place to minimise the risk of this kind of failure happening again. Oftel takes network reliability very seriously and it will scrutinise carefully BT's report. When BT has completed its investigations Oftel will discuss the incident with BT and examine whether any further action will be required to ensure that the risks of further disruption are minimised.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the total work force in his Department is registered as disabled; and what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people in his Department. [102041]

  Dr. Reid
  At 1 January 2000 no staff from the Scotland Office had self declared a disability in terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. (The procedure under which people could formerly be registered disabled ceased on 2 December 1999).

  Recruitment advertisements and associated information will make it clear that my Department is an equal opportunity employer and will carry the Employment Services Disability symbol, highlighting its commitment to people with disabilities and a positive approach to staff who have a disability.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the total work force in his Department is of ethnic minority origin; and what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of people from the ethnic minorities in his Department. [102729]

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many senior civil servants from an ethnic minority background are employed in his Department; and how many of them are(a) men and (b) women. [110677]

  Dr. Reid
  Information on the ethnic origin of civil servants is collected using a voluntary, confidential questionnaire. To protect the privacy of individual staff, data relating to fewer than five people are not disclosed in equal opportunities monitoring. Information is therefore not available for my Department for the total percentage of the work force who are from an ethnic minority background.

  Action is being taken across the civil service to address the under-representation of ethnic minorities. As part of that, my Department will seek ways to encourage more applications from ethnic minority communities.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Figures
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have left the New Deal for young people for jobs lasting less than 13 weeks but have been included in the number leaving for sustained employment as a result of not having returned to jobseeker's allowance. [105699]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: We define sustained jobs as those where the employee is working for at least 13 weeks and does not return to claim jobseeker's allowance (JSA) in that time. If they do return to JSA we drop them from the sustained jobs figure. Using this definition, under the New Deal for young people, 126,190 have found sustained employment. We are not at present able to measure how many, if any, will have left these jobs within 13 weeks and chosen not to claim JSA.

  Benefits (Somerset)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have had their benefits stopped for failing properly to take up a New Deal option, at each benefit office within the Yeovil constituency and at the Taunton office; and if he will make a statement. [110797]

  Ms Jowell
  Between 1 April 1999 and 30 September 1999 (the latest date for which data are available), 540 young people started on New Deal and at any one time there were just over 700 young people participating in New Deal in the Employment Service's Somerset Unit of Delivery. During this six month period, eight sanctions were imposed for failing to attend a New Deal option in Somerset. This figure cannot be disaggregated to constituency level. The Somerset Unit of Delivery includes the jobcentres in Taunton, Yeovil, Bridgwater, Burnham-on-Sea, Chard, Frome, Minehead, Street, Wellington and Wells.

  Education Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many education maintenance allowances have been awarded in each region to date. [111664]

  Mr. Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on 2 March 2000,Official Report, columns 393–94W.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the 12 pilot schemes for education maintenance allowances. [113121]

  Mr. Wicks
  We are encouraged by the success so far in the overall take up of EMAs, which are being piloted in 15 local education authority areas. EMAs have the potential to make a real difference to the life chances of young people and are an innovative way of helping those with financial difficulties to stay in education.
  471W
  It is too early to identify the impact which EMAs will have on participation rates, although they have increased in all the pilot areas. Anecdotal information suggests that EMAs are helping young people from disadvantaged backgrounds remain in education, when otherwise they may not have participated. A number of institutions have also reported that EMAs have had a positive effect on attendance, effort and discipline. Students recognise that if they want to have the allowance, they have a responsibility to attend regularly and adhere to their learning agreement.

  There is a sophisticated evaluation programme in place for the duration of the pilot which will provide more information in due course.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to expand the clubhouse movement as a way of assisting people with disabilities on the New Deal. [111413]

  Ms Hodge
  The Government fully support the aim of the Clubhouse movement which engages members and staff together in order to get people with mental health problems back into open paid employment. We are currently considering how the New Deal for Disabled People can best develop and will consider as part of that what role the Clubhouse movement could play.

  Secondary School Places
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many secondary age pupils are without a school place in each year group in each London borough; what assistance his Department provides to find places for these children; and if he will make a statement. [111984]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not collected centrally by my Department. Section 14 of the Education Act 1996 places a duty on individual LEAs to ensure that there are sufficient school places for all children of compulsory school age in their area. Each LEA must produce annually a School Organisation Plan, which is a 5 year rolling plan, setting out how they propose to remedy any excess or insufficiency of school places and to make provision for children with special educational needs. Plans are approved at local level by the School Organisation Committee for the area or, if they cannot agree, by an independent Adjudicator. All but two London boroughs have had the Plans they published in 1999 approved by their local School Organisation Committee.

  New Deal
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research his Department has(a) completed and (b) is undertaking on the social, economic and fiscal costs and benefits of the New Deal. [111170]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: The Department for Education and Employment and the Employment Service have a comprehensive programme of research and evaluation underway to measure the impact of all aspects of New Deal. All the evaluation studies are carried out by independent external research organisations and all are published.
  472W
  The research and evaluation programme comprises quantitative and qualitative research with individual participants, quantitative and qualitative research with employers, case studies of delivery and impact, and macro-economic evaluation and analysis.

  As part of this programme the Employment Service has commissioned independent analysis of the economic and fiscal costs and benefits of the New Deal for Young People. First results are reported in "The New Deal for Young People: First Year Analysis of Implications for the Macroeconomy", which was published in December 1999 and is available in the library (reference ESR 33). Analysis will continue and will be published in future annual summary reports of the macroeconomic evaluation of the New Deal for young people.

  Information on the wider social effects of New Deal is being collected in various New Deal evaluation surveys and will be analysed in published final reports.

  The following elements of the NDYP evaluation have been completed and published:

  Case studies of New Deal delivery and impact in Pathfinder areas

  National case studies of delivery and impact

  Qualitative research with individuals on Gateway in Pathfinders

  Qualitative research with individuals on Options in Pathfinders

  Qualitative research with individuals on Follow-Through in Pathfinders

  Qualitative research with individuals on national Gateway

  Qualitative research with individuals on national Options

  Early qualitative research with employers

  Stage 2 qualitative research with employers

  First annual summary report on progress on New Deal to November 1998

  Quantitative survey of leavers from New Deal Gateway to unknown destinations

  New Deal Gateway: A Labour Market Assessment.

  The following strands of the evaluation are still underway:

  Qualitative research with individuals on national Follow-Through

  Second annual summary report

  Quantitative survey of individual participants—Stage 1

  Quantitative survey of individuals participants—Stage 2 follow-up survey (interviews underway)

  Quantitative survey of participating employers

  Evaluation of New Deal for Musicians

  Survey of leavers from Options to unknown destinations

  Evaluation of Intensive Gateway Trailblazers.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will state the number and percentage of participants in the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds in(a) Great Britain, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales who have entered unsubsidised sustained employment through the New Deal; and if he will list the areas in Scotland where a smaller percentage of participants than the (i) Great Britain average and (ii) the Scottish average figures have entered unsubsidised sustained employment through the New Deal; and if he will list the number and percentage of those entering unsubsidised sustained employment in each of those areas of Scotland. [111280]
  473W
  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: The information requested is set out in the tables. Many other young people will have found work without telling the Employment Service.

  Percentage of New Deal starts gaining sustained unsubsidised employment

  Percentage

  Scotland

  28

  Wales

  30

  GB

  29

  Scottish Units of delivery with a smaller percentage than the GB average

  Sustained unsubsidised jobs

  As a percentage of New Deal starts

  Ayrshire

  1,147

  27

  Dumfries and Galloway

  323

  27

  Edinburgh, East and Mid Lothian

  986

  28

  Fife

  977

  28

  Glasgow

  1,922

  23

  Grampian

  471

  28

  Renfrewshire

  768

  28

  Caithness and Sutherland

  71

  27

  Orkney

  18

  26

  Shetland

  14

  23

  18–24 New Deal

  25+ New Deal

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Numbers starting New Deal

  Greenock and Inverclyde constituency

  432

  180

  247

  45

  Renfrewshire Unit of Delivery

  2,118

  650

  1,328

  191

  Scotland

  33,430

  11,370

  18,050

  3,070

  Numbers entering unsubsidised employment

  Greenock and Inverclyde constituency

  170

  73

  25

  7

  Renfrewshire Unit of Delivery

  842

  360

  137

  24

  Scotland

  14,230

  4,080

  1,860

  318

  Note:

  These figures demonstrate the effectiveness of the New Deal in getting long-term unemployed people into work

  Access Funds and Hardship Loans
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) of 25 January 2000,Official Report, column 151W, if he will tabulate the annual cost component element of his package for access funds and hardship loans. [112124]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: Of the £68 million which the package will cost in a full year, £10 million is identified for bursaries for disadvantaged young students, administered through Access Funds. The package did not contain any cost component for Hardship Loans. Furthermore, in 2000–01 we are making available £17 million for bursaries for mature students and £57 million for a Hardship Fund.

  Further Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the(a) adequacy and (b) sufficiency of further education funding in the East Midlands. [112116]
  474W

  Scottish Units of delivery with a smaller percentage than the Scotland average

  Sustained unsubsidised jobs

  As a percentage of New Deal starts

  Ayrshire

  1,147

  27

  Dumfries and Galloway

  323

  27

  Glasgow

  1,922

  23

  Caithness and Sutherland

  71

  27

  Orkney

  18

  26

  Shetland

  14

  23

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) males aged under 25 years, (b) females aged under 25 years, (c) males aged over 25 and, (d) females aged over 25, in (i) Inverclyde, (ii) Renfrewshire and (iii) Scotland as a whole have participated in the New Deal; of these how many entered full-time employment afterwards; and if he will make a statement. [111501]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: The figures shown in the table relate to the period ending December 1999.

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: Analysis undertaken by the FEFC as part of its monitoring of potential risks to adequacy and sufficiency of provision indicates that there are seven, out of a total of 33 colleges funded by the FEFC within the East Midlands, assessed as category C. That classification implies that a college is financially weak or may become dependent on the goodwill of others. The Council has instigated strategies in regard to these institutions. Where there is any risk to adequacy and sufficiency the Council will be taking a proactive role in working with those colleges needing support.

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the change in the number of full-time equivalent students in further education sector colleges funded by the Further Education Funding Council since 1997. [112360]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Further Education Funding Council estimate that full-time equivalent student numbers were 1 per cent. lower in 1998–99 than in 1997–98, reflecting the clampdown on the unacceptable aspects of franchising which grew up under the previous Administration. The
  475W
  FEFC will be consulting on measures to support recruitment in line with our plans, which provide for an increase of 700,000 students in FE by 2001–02.

  Jean Monnet Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements are in place to monitor the political neutrality of Jean Monnet projects. [112337]

  Ms Jowell
  The Jean Monnet project awards funds to support European courses in the Higher Education Sector. The project is run by the European Commission in consultation with university authorities. Member States authorities have no involvement in the programme, which is administered by the Commission's Directorate-General Education and Culture.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children are receiving free school meals in the Greater London area. [112619]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In January 1999, the latest date for which information is available, there were 225,566 pupils taking a free school meal in maintained schools in the Greater London area. This figure represents 22 per cent. of day pupils educated in these schools.

  Information on free school meals is published annually in the Statistical Volume 'Statistics of Education Schools in England', copies of which are available from the Library.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the 50 local education authorities with the highest percentage of pupils that are entitled to free school meals ranked in descending order of percentage. [113200]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number and percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools 1 by local education authority area 2 in England January 1999

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for a free school meal

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for a free school meal3

  Tower Hamlets

  21,857

  59.2

  Hackney

  12,140

  46.3

  Islington

  10,871

  45.4

  Knowsley

  13,443

  44.8

  Manchester

  31,045

  44.5

  Southwark

  14,940

  43.5

  Lambeth

  11,872

  42.5

  Westminster

  7,127

  39.6

  Haringey

  13,104

  39.5

  Newham

  18,890

  39.1

  Liverpool

  31,560

  38.7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4,065

  38.7

  City of London

  83

  38.4

  Hamersmith and Fulham

  6,484

  38.4

  Greenwich

  13,633

  37.3

  Camden

  8,155

  35.6

  City of Nottingham

  15,189

  35.4

  Lewisham

  12,282

  35.2

  Birmingham

  60,800

  33.7

  Wandsworth

  9,115

  32.2

  476W

  Number and percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools 1 by local education authority area 2 in England January 1999

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for a free school meal

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for a free school meal3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  13,019

  32.2

  Middlesbrough

  8,281

  32.1

  Salford

  11,142

  30.3

  Waltham Forest

  10,643

  29.8

  South Tyneside

  7,836

  29.6

  Sunderland

  14,716

  29.3

  Wirral

  15,921

  28.8

  Halton

  6,133

  27.8

  Stoke

  10,865

  27.6

  Blackburn and Darwen

  7,200

  27.6

  Brent

  10,293

  27.6

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  12,060

  27.5

  Rochdale

  10,072

  27.1

  Redcar and Cleveland

  7,044

  26.6

  Hartlepool

  4,571

  26.6

  St. Helens

  8,031

  26.5

  Bradford

  23,555

  26.4

  Ealing

  11,184

  26.1

  Blackpool

  5,272

  26.0

  Barking and Dagenham

  7,358

  25.3

  Barmsley

  8,739

  24.7

  Sheffield

  18,415

  24.2

  City of Bristol

  12,664

  24.1

  Hounslow

  8,612

  24.1

  Luton

  7,637

  23.9

  Leicester City

  11,680

  23.7

  Gateshead

  7,219

  23.6

  Oldham

  9,878

  23.5

  Sandwell

  12,264

  23.2

  Sefton

  10,864

  22.4

  1 Includes maintained and non maintained special schools.

  2 The table includes the 50 local education authorities with the highest percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals.

  3 The Number of pupils known to be eligible for free schools meals expressed as a percentage of the number of day pupils in school.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children(a) were entitled to free school meals and (b) claimed free school meals in each of the past 10 years. [113206]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Number of pupils who take or are known to be eligible for free school meals in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in England: 1991–99 Position as at January

  Number of pupils who take a free school meal

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  1999

  1,088,194

  1,416,709

  1998

  1,130,476

  1,465,213

  1997

  1,189,415

  1,536,300

  1996

  1,260,426

  1,570,561

  1995

  1,234,837

  1,540,505

  19941

  1,217,126

  1,505,875

  1993

  1,137,895

  1,425,141

  1992

  999,011

  2—

  1991

  818,930

  2—

  1 From 1994, figures exclude sixth form colleges which ceased to be classified as schools

  2 Not available

  Summer Camps
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress he has made in establishing summer activity camps; when and where the first ones will be held; how many young people will be taking part; what is the expected cost; and if he will make a statement. [112641]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 389.

  Community Action Programme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on planned use of the Community Action Programme to combat discrimination 2000–2006 in(a) the armed forces,
  (b) schools, (c) the police force, (d) the NHS and (e) the social security system; what media campaigns are planned; and what the target audience is for planned publications. [112508]

  Ms Jowell
  The Community Action Programme to combat discrimination has been put forward by the European Commission as part of the package of proposals under Article 13 of the EC Treaty. The proposals are currently in negotiation in the Working Group of the Social Affairs Council.

  Secondary School Teachers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many secondary school teachers in the subjects of(a) mathematics, (b) science, (c) languages and (d) technology left the teaching profession in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and how many secondary school teachers entered the profession in the same period. [112982]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Figures showing the number of secondary school teachers in the subjects of(a) mathematics, (b) science, (c) languages and (d) technology leaving the teaching profession in each of the last 10 years are not held centrally.

  The numbers' of those entering maintained secondary schools who were teaching for the first time, are as follows:

  Year to March

  Number of teachers

  19982

  10,380

  19972

  9,660

  19962

  9,320

  19952

  9,490

  19942

  8,920

  1993

  7,990

  1992

  7,290

  1991

  7,160

  1990

  7,260

  1989

  6,840

  1 All figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  1 Excluding sixth form colleges from 1994 onwards

  Sixth Form Colleges
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure sixth 478W
  form colleges get the same level of financial support as secondary schools implementing the new A level curriculum. [112823]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 3 March 2000]: We have taken steps to ensure that both colleges in the FE sector and schools with sixth forms have the resources they need to introduce the revised post-16 qualifications from September this year. At the Government's request, the Further Education Funding Council has revised its funding system so as to offer colleges a clear incentive to provide students with broader programmes of study than the traditional norm. In addition, £35 million was added to the overall education standard spending settlement for 2000–01 to reflect the potential costs to local education authorities nationally of implementing the reforms in the schools they maintain.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the 50 local education authorities with the highest number of exclusions expressed as a percentage of their school population for the last year for which figures are available. [113277]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information is shown in the table.

  Information on permanent exclusions for the academic year 1998–99 is currently being collected and national estimates are expected to be published in a Statistical First Release in May.

  Number and percentage of permanent exclusions in maintained primary, secondary and special schools 1 by local education authority area 2 England 1997–98

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of the school population3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  38

  0.37

  Doncaster

  197

  0.37

  Westminster

  63

  0.36

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  52

  0.33

  Reading4

  54

  0.31

  Derby

  112

  0.30

  City of Bristol

  151

  0.30

  Southwark

  96

  0.29

  South Tyneside

  74

  0.28

  Manchester

  198

  0.28

  Wandsworth

  76

  0.27

  City of Nottingham4

  116

  0.27

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  54

  0.27

  Telford and Wrekin4

  69

  0.27

  Brent

  97

  0.26

  Salford

  93

  0.26

  Stoke

  101

  0.26

  Waltham Forest

  89

  0.26

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  102

  0.25

  Liverpool

  206

  0.25

  Blackburn and Darwen4

  62

  0.24

  Bracknell Forest4

  38

  0.24

  Coventry

  122

  0.24

  Sandwell

  125

  0.24

  Lambeth

  62

  0.23

  Lewisham

  77

  0.23

  Croydon

  108

  0.23

  Portsmouth

  59

  0.23

  Thurrock4

  48

  0.22

  Camden

  50

  0.22

  Leicester City

  109

  0.22

  479W

  Number and percentage of permanent exclusions in maintained primary, secondary, and special schools 1 by local education authority area 2 England 1997–98

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of the school population3

  Birmingham

  390

  0.22

  Southampton

  67

  0.22

  Slough4

  40

  0.22

  Bromley

  93

  0.21

  Harrow

  60

  0.21

  Windsor and Maidenhead4

  38

  0.20

  Medway4

  90

  0.20

  Hounslow

  71

  0.20

  Blackpool4

  40

  0.20

  Hartlepool

  34

  0.20

  Bath and NE Somerset

  50

  0.20

  Islington

  47

  0.20

  Ealing

  82

  0.19

  Havering

  70

  0.19

  Leeds

  225

  0.19

  Tameside

  73

  0.19

  Enfield

  87

  0.19

  Bexley

  72

  0.19

  Darlington

  29

  0.19

  1 Includes maintained and non maintained special schools

  2 The table includes the 50 local education authorities with the highest percentage of permanent exclusions

  3 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of full and part-time pupils of all ages in primary, secondary and special schools, excluding dually registered pupils in special schools in January 1998

  4 From April 1998

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total of accumulated TEC surpluses to date. [113212]

  Mr. Wicks
  Based on the 1998–99 consolidated annual statutory audited accounts of 72 English TECs, the total of accumulated TEC post-tax surpluses/deficits was a deficit £12.7 million.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 31 January concerning political material in schools. [113310]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply issued today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Rat Infestation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what was the total expenditure in each of the last three years for treating and controlling rat infestations in the Palace of Westminster. [113068]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  The Palace of Westminster does not have a significant problem of infestation by rats, and most of the vermin supposedly identified as rats 480W
  have, in fact, tuned out to be mice. However, the total expenditure on pest control for the Palace of Westminster for the last three years has been follows:

  £

  1996–97

  15,881

  1997–98

  15,185

  1998–99

  16,405

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Local Authority Loans
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of he will propose an amendment of the law to allow local authorities in Nothern Ireland to redeem outstanding long term loans; and if he will make a statement. [112655]

  Mr. Ingram
  Redemption terms were published in the Belfast Gazette on 13 Junuary 1995.

  HMP Maghaberry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date instructions were last issued at HMP Maghaberry, governing the receipt by prisoners of printed materials dealing with political subjects; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [111942]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 2 March 2000]: There are no specific instructions in existence regarding the receipt by prisoners of printed materials dealing with political subjects at Maghaberry Prison. The admission of all printed material to HMP Maghaberry is governed by Rule 67 of the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995. HMP Maghaberry is a fully integrated prison with no segregation on grounds of political, religious or paramilitary affiliation. As a result, the Governor may use his discretion, under Prison Rule 67, to refuse admission to printed material dealing with political subjects if he believes it could prejudice the security, or control, of the prison by raising tensions between such affiliates.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to restore dialogue between the parties to the Good Friday Agreement. [113360]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Following my decision on 11 February to suspend the operation of the institutions, I have had several meetings with the political parties in Northern Ireland and with the Irish Government. I will have a further series of meetings during the course of this week to determine how the necessary cross community confidence can be rebuilt to enable the institutions to be restored as soon as possible.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will recommend a minimum level of infertility treatments per 100,000 of population in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [113189]
  481W
  Mr. George Howarth
  I have no plans to recommend a minimum level of treatment for infertility. In line with Health Authorities in Great Britain, it is a matter for the Health and Social Services Boards in Northern Ireland to determine the priority to be given to infertility services in their areas. Such decisions are taken in the light of local needs, available resources and clinical effectiveness.

  Central Services Agencies Register
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people there are on the Central Services Agencies Register. [112798]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of General Medical Practitioners on the Central Services Agency's Register was 1,061 at 1 February 2000, the latest date for which figures are available.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  New Public Bodies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the new public bodies established by his Department since May 1997. [112672]

  Jane Kennedy
  The annual Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies", provides information on a range of public bodies. The 1997 edition lists those public bodies in existence prior to May 1997. The 1998 and 1999 editions list public bodies in existence in subsequent years. Copies of these publications have been placed in the Library of the House. Copies are also available on the Cabinet Office website (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/quango).

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the statement that rural areas received a higher share of National Lottery awards than urban areas on page six of the report by the Cabinet Office, entitled "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity," refers to(a) the share of the number of individual lottery awards or (b) the monetary value of the awards. [110507]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: The statement that rural areas received a higher share of National Lottery awards than urban areas is based on the number of awards per capita.

  Communications Industry
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to create a single regulator for the communications industry. [112616]

  Janet Anderson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 3 February their intention to publish a White Paper later this year setting out the Government's proposals for the reform of communications legislation. It 482W
  is to early to say at this stage what the White Paper will propose concerning the regulatory structures for the communications industry.

  Parthenon Marbles
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his policy on the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece. [113163]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government believe that the Parthenon sculptures should remain at the British Museum.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list by constituency the number of pensioner households which(a) will and (b) will not be eligible for the free television licence in November. [113018]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 3 March 2000]: 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.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioner households will not receive the free TV licence for the over 75s. [111865]

  Janet Anderson
  The estimated number of households consisting only of people of state pensionable age but below the age of 75 is 2.9 million.

DEFENCE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many questions to his Department tabled for ordinary written answer during Session 1998–99 were answered(a) within two weeks of tabling, (b) within one month of tabling, (c) within three months of tabling and (d) after three months of tabling. [106491]

  Dr. Moonie
  During the Session 1998–99, 1,347 questions were tabled to my Department for ordinary written answer. Of this total, 1,240 were answered within two weeks of tabling, 1,284 were answered within one month of tabling and 1,304 were answered within three months of tabling. All 1,347 questions were answered after three months of tabling.

  Anglo-French Submarine Patrol
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions involving Ministers and officials of his Department have recently taken place or are planned within the Anglo-French Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy and Doctrine concerning joint or co-ordinated ballistic missile submarine patrols with the French Navy. [112423]
  483W
  Mr. Hoon
  None. The UK/France Joint Nuclear Commission, established in 1992, normally meets twice yearly at official level for discussions on a wide range of issues. By joint agreement, these exclude the operational deployment of our respective nuclear deterrent forces.

  Euro
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [112146]

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

  River Class Minesweepers
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the Ministry of Defence Performance report 1998–99 published on 20 December 1999 includes River Class minesweepers transferred to Brazil in 1998; and if he will make a statement. [112431]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence Departmental Performance Report 1998–99 covers the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999. The River Class Patrol Minesweepers—Blackwater, Itchen, Spey and Arun—were reported in two sections of the Report: Paragraph 41 and Annexe B. Paragraph 41 noted their hand-over to the Brazilian Navy, which occurred between the end of April 1998 and mid October 1998. Annexe B, the Royal Navy Force Structure table, detailed all Fleet Force Elements in-service during the period of the Report. Annexe B correctly included three of these four vessels which were still in service between April and July 1998, but failed to include a footnote on their pay off dates. The fourth vessel—Itchen—was paid off at the end of February 1998, outside the reporting period, and should not therefore have been included in this table.

  A further error has been found in the Royal Navy Force Structure table at Annexe B of the Performance Report. The section detailing the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Force Elements shows only one Roll-on Roll-off vessel, Sea Crusader, in service during the period. In this case, the strength of the Fleet was understated as the second vessel in the class, Sea Centurion, entered Immediate Operational Service on 19 October 1998.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what written representations on the proposals for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency public-private partnership have been received by his Department from the United States Department of Defense. [112369]

  Mr. Hoon
  Officials in my Department have received written representations on the proposal to implement a public-private-partnership (PPP) for the Defence 484W
  Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) from the following representatives in the US Department of Defense (DOD):

  The Hon. Jacques Gansler, Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology);

  Dr. Dolores Etter, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science and Technology);

  Walter Hollis, Deputy Under Secretary of the Army (Operational Research);

  Lieutenant General Kadish, Director Ballistic Missile Defence Organisation; and

  John Manela rk, Director Test and Evaluation, US Air Force.

  In addition, officials have received a number of electronic mails from Dr. Craig Dorman, the Chief Scientist of the Office of Naval Research, the DOD's nominated focal point for DERA PPP.

  Comment in this written correspondence has focused on the following areas:
  Maintenance of existing UK/US Government interactions in science and technology following PPP;
  Protection of security and commercially sensitive information, and the application of the proposed "compliance regime";
  Legal and contractual issues associated with the proposed PPP;
  The need to avoid possible conflicts of interest arising from a private sector DERA's commercial imperatives and government functions;
  Possible alternative PPP options and their ability to meet both governments' requirements.

  French Navy
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions have taken place involving(a) officials and (b) Ministers from his Department on arrangements for ballistic missile submarines from the French Navy to visit the UK. [112650]

  Mr. Hoon
  We hope that a visit by a French ballistic missile submarine to HM Naval Base, Clyde, will be possible later this year. Initial discussions have taken place at official level on the arrangements for such a visit; further meetings are planned. No discussions involving Ministers have taken place.

  Victory Gate
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how long the main gates at Victory Gate, Royal Naval Yard, Portsmouth, are to remain closed. [R] [112689]

  Dr. Moonie
  The main gates were shut for a matter of a few days to allow essential maintenance work to be undertaken. The gates were re-opened on 24 February 2000 for pedestrian access, although vehicle access will remain restricted until work is completed on the Millennium Walk in the Heritage Area of the Naval Base.

  Anthrax Vaccine
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is on the use of anthrax vaccine which has passed its recommended use-by date; and if such vaccine has been used since 1990. [112999]

  Dr. Moonie
  Our policy is only to use vaccine which has a current licence granted by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA). Our stocks of anthrax vaccine that were
  485W
  procured for the 1990–91 Gulf Conflict have, since 1993, had their shelf-life extended by the MCA on a number of occasions and only these stocks have been given to personnel.

  UK Hydrographic Office
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the UK Hydrographic Office for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111735]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from J. P. Clarke to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence a Parliamentary Question relating to the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO). As the matters you raise fall within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the UKHO, I have been asked to reply to you direct. The Agency's performance on key targets were reported in our Annual Report and Accounts 1998–99, which is available in the Library of the House.
  The following targets for 1998–99 were achieved:
  Key Target 2 To achieve 100% of the endorsed and funded Defence Programme to cost, quality and timeliness targets as defined in Tasking Authorisation Forms (TAFs);
  Key Target 3 To meet short-notice Defence operational requirements within agreed timescales;
  Key Target 4 Implement, by 30 September 1998, new performance indicators of product availability and service levels for response times as perceived from our customers' perspective for improving safe navigation;
  Key Target 5 To break even taking one year with another; and Key Target 6 To achieve an average Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) during the plan period of 7.5 per cent.
  The following factors affected the outcome of the remaining two targets for 1998–99:
  Key Target 1 To process and promulgate priority safety information within stated timescales from receipt of data.
  The five performance indicators that contribute to this target and the actual annual per cent. compliance achieved for each is as follows:

  1. 100 per cent. of Radio Navigational warnings (RNW) within thirty minutes for SafetyNet and four hours for NAVTEX. Achieved 100 per cent.

  2. 100 per cent. textural Notices to Mariners from textural sources within 5 weeks. Achieved 98 per cent.

  3. 100 per cent. textural Notices to Mariners from graphic sources within 10 weeks. Achieved 94 per cent.

  4. 100 per cent. Notice to Mariners - issued as Blocks within 15 weeks. Achieved 100 per cent.

  5. 100 per cent. Urgent New Editions within 24 weeks. Achieved 99 per cent.

  The Notice to Mariners performance indicators are challenging and any failure to meet them is examined for reasons and ways to improve our processes. The Urgent New Editions Performance reflects the delay of one new edition due to higher priority work.
  Key Target 7 To achieve efficiency savings of 13.5 per cent. of controllable costs (based on controllable costs for FY95–96) by 31 March 2001.
  This Key Target is not due for completion until 31 March 2001. The United Kingdom Hydrographic Office has achieved a net positive efficiency and is on target to meet the five-year objective of 13.5 per cent.
  486W
  To improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000, the UKHO detailed a range of improvement measures in a five year Corporate Plan that was approved by the responsible Minister. The plan includes proposals for both short and long-term Improvements and details a range of capital investments, performance reviews and an efficiency plan.

  RAF Training Group Defence
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the RAF Training Group Defence for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111739]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Training Group Defence Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from G. E. Willis to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the RAF Training Group Defence Agency performance against its 1998–99 Key Targets as these matters fall within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Agency had 4 Key Targets which were published in the Training Group Defence Agency Annual Report and Accounts 1998–1999, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House.
  Key Target 1—Quality of Product. This target is concerned with the achievement of customer satisfaction with the quality of graduate trainees, as reflected in Customer Advisory Committee reports to the Air Officer Commanding in-Chief. The specific target for 1998–99 was the development of a quality monitoring system by 31 March 1999, which was achieved.
  Key Target 2—Efficiency. The target was to deliver the savings that accrue from the efficiencies planned for FY 98–99. The requirement for 1998–99 was a saving of £10.042M. The actual savings made of £11.529M means this target was also achieved.
  Key Target 3a—Quantity of Output (Flying Training). This target concerns the percentage of trained personnel delivered against RAF requirements. The target set for 1998–99 was 96.0%. The actual achievement was 78.8%. Full output was only achieved in the case of Air Engineers. The reasons for shortfalls in other areas of flying training were as follows:
  Fast jet pilots—operational commitments, which took qualified flying instructors away from the flying training task and a temporary problem with aircraft serviceability were the main factors.
  Multi engine pilots—student numbers had to be reduced because a backlog was developing due to the delayed delivery of the C130J impacting on the ability of the front line to absorb newly trained pilots.
  Rotary Wing pilots—a shortfall arose as the failure rate of trainees was slightly higher than forecast.
  Navigators—a temporary instructor shortage and poor weather resulted in the cancellation of one course. Additionally, some navigator recruits were switched to pilot training during their Initial Officer Training to meet increased demand for pilots.
  Airmen Aircrew disciplines—insufficient recruits to meet the full requirements.
  Key Target 3b—Quantity of Output (Ground Training). This target also concerns the percentage of trained personnel delivered against RAF requirements. The target set for 1998–99 was 97.0%.

  487W
  The actual achievement was 96.3%. The shortfall was due to recruitment difficulties in certain trades, most notably the RAF Regiment.
  Key Target 4—Development of Output Costings and Unit Cost Measures. This target covered the need to provide full output costings and associated unit cost and efficiency measures for the Agency by FY 00–01. The 1998–99 target which was to produce an Output Costing Model was achieved.
  You ask what action is being taken to improve performance. The remedial actions taken by the Training Group Defence Agency are as follows:
  All non-essential flying tasks cancelled to maximise the flying training hours available.
  Management action has increased the serviceability of aircraft and improved the provision of spares.
  The Hercules Multi-Engine Operational Conversion Unit's planned output is being increased to eliminate the backlog of students.
  The RAF Personnel Management Agency has addressed the availability of instructors.
  Recruiting strategy has been reviewed and as a result we are targeting populations where recruitment has been poor.
  In addition to the recruitment measures other actions to improve performance against Ground Training targets include pre-training course visits by potential recruits to the RAF Regiment Depot and the development of new training courses that provide the opportunity to gain Modern Apprenticeships. I am pleased to say that these are proving very popular with the recruitment of aircraft technicians.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Defence Communications Services
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Defence Communications Services for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111748]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Communication Services Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from A. J. Raper to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence, about the targets for the Defence Communication Services Agency, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility, being the Chief Executive of the Agency.
  I am pleased to report that the DCSA achieved all of its Key Targets for the Financial Year 1998/99. Further information is contained on Page 10 of the DCSA Annual Report 1998/1999, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The DCSA Key Targets for 1998/99 were essentially developmental targets for the first year of the Agency's existence. They were primarily concerned with system availability as opposed to measuring of a service. This was a reflection of the approach historically taken by Defence in the provision of information services. However, it is the quality and availability of the services which are of importance to Defence customers and the Key Targets for FY 1999/2000 therefore focus on measurement of these services. Clearly, the new Key Targets needed to be both quantitative and measurable. I have included details of them at Annex A for your information.
  Given the need to focus upon the provisions of services, the DCSA has changed its internal management processes accordingly and reviews the performance of its services against the new Key Targets on a monthly basis. The information is presented to the Management Board using a Balanced Scorecard approach, supported by a comprehensive monthly report, which provides detailed
  488W
  analysis of Agency performance against its Business Plan and all 4 Key Targets. The Agency has improved performance against the targets by designing and then refining the internal business processes that are needed to deliver services. The proposed Key Targets for Financial Year 2000/01 will not change as radically as the change between the Agency's first years with the exception of the inclusion of a new efficiency target: to achieve an improvement in efficiency by reducing the average unit cost of output for current DCSA products by 5% per annum.
  DCSA Key Targets For 1999/00

  1. KT1—Service Quality—To achieve a mean 95% of the quality of service performance targets in the Baseline Services Document for the timeliness, accuracy and protection of information transfer services except where other specific targets have been agreed with customers.

  2. KT2—Service Provisioning—To commission 90% of new requests for service on or before the dates agreed with customers.

  3. KT3 Service Restoration—To restore 95% of interrupted services classed as operationally urgent within 4 hours or within specific other periods agreed with customers.

  4. KT4 Operator Services—To answer 85% of calls to DCSA telephone Operator Assistance Centres in UK and Germany within 15 seconds.

  5. The following targets were also proposed as Key Targets for FY 1999–2000 but were deemed inappropriate. They have, however, been included within the Agency's Corporate Plan as strategic objectives:

  a. Customer Satisfaction—To be graded Moderate or High in 70% of customer surveys.

  b. Efficiency Measurement—To establish a baseline of unit costs of the DCSA's outputs against which efficiency targets can be set in future years.

  Medical Supplies Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Medical Supplies Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111744]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Medical Supplies Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from Brian Nimick to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  1. I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Medical Supplies agency's performance and targets for financial year 1998/99 as these matters fall within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Medical Supplies Agency.
  2. The details of those targets for 1998/99, which were achieved are shown below:

  a. The Key Targets of this Agency for 1998/99 which were achieved:

  (1) Key Target 1. To build, completed and to time and within budget, for all three Services, 95% of the programme for kits, outfits and packs, as defined in endorsed Equipment Tables and as directed by Director Medical Programme and Plans, at the Surgeon General's Headquarters.

  (2) Achievement and factors affecting the outcome. The build programme originally defined was met apart from one tranche. In terms of modules completed this represented a 98% success, so the Key Target was achieved. The one tranche not completed was deferred by Director Medical Programme and Plans, because of other urgent operational commitments. These accounted to more than the postponed tranche, but were successfully completed by the Medical Supplies Agency.

  489W

  (3) Key Target 2. To meet 100% of the Services' requirements for stocked medical material blood products for operations.

  (4) Achievement. As at the fourth quarter of 1998/99, all requirements for stocked medical material and blood products for operations had been met despite heavy operational commitments.

  (5) Key Target 3. To meet 98% of the Services' requirements for stocked medical material and blood products for exercises and training.

  (6) Achievement. The services' planned requirements for exercises and training were fully met by the fourth quarter of the financial year 1998/99.

  (7) Key Target 5. To improve the ratio of stock held from 1.30 to 1.72.

  (8) Achievement. The Stockturn figures for the financial year 1998/99 was 1.96.

  (9) Key Target 6. By 31 December 1998, the Medical. Supplies Agency will have set in place a mechanism, which communicates the full cost of the drugs and medical material supplied. The communicated costs will be in a format which is acceptable to the Agency's major customers, whether or not they have a Service Level Agreement.

  (10) Achievement. The means of communicating costs was in place by 31 December 1998. The format has been continually developed by the Agency and its customers.

  b. The Key Target of this Agency for 1998/99 which was not achieved with factors affecting the outcome are as follows:

  (1) Key Target 4. to meet 85% of demands for Category B items, within the Medical Supplies Agency's new charter standard (next day delivery of priority demands; 72 hours for routine); and 95% within one week.

  (2) Achievement and factors affecting the outcome. The Annual Report for 1998/99 recorded an overall improvement throughout the year. The success rate for the fourth quarter was 78% achieved within 1 week for priority demands, with 56% within 1–3 days. Overall the figures show 54% of all demands were achieved within 1 week and 45% of demands were achieved within 1–3 days.

  (3) Comment: This new Charter Standard was introduced at the start of the year, which was a step change form the MOD standard of 28 working days for routine delivery. The standard was regarded as aspirational and the first target speculative. In the event, our plans suffered because of an unforecast and substantial increase in the number of demands presented over the period: up from 66,000 in the first quarter of 1997/98 to 78,500 in the last quarter of 1998/99. Had the volume of demand remained constant, it is probable that this target would have been met. In the overall assessment of this Agency's performance Surgeon General accepted these difficulties.

  3. Details of the actions taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999/2000 are as follows:

  a. A complete review of the inventory to ensure the correct balance between items supplied from stock and those procured to order (benefit all Key Targets).

  b. The extension of E-Commerce to cover a larger range of high volume items in the inventory (Key Target 4).

  c. The introduction of the use of production orders in the modular build programme (Key Targets 1, 2 and 3).

  d. An extensive programme to dispose of unwanted items (Key Target 5).

  e. The introduction of computerised interim stock management at the Medical Distribution Centres (Key Target 4).

  4. The Medical Supplies Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for 1998/99 are currently being produced. Copies will be lodged in the libraries of The House of Commons and The House of Lords following publication.

  Ships Support Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Ships Support Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111737]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Ships Support Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from John Coles to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence in which you asked for a list of those targets for the Ships Support Agency for 1998–99 which were achieved and those which were not, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case. You also asked for details of the action taken by the Agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Ships Support Agency.
  The information that you seek, including a list of the initiatives we are pursuing to improve our performance, is contained in my Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for 1998/99, in particular in the Section entitled Review of Performance. A copy of the report is held in the Library of the House.
  In addition to the initiatives referred to in the Agency's report, the introduction of Smart Procurement and the establishment within the Agency of a number of Integrated Project Teams will help to streamline the acquisition and support process from cradle to grave. These too are expected to contribute to improvements in performance, if not in 1999–00, then in the following and subsequent financial years.

  Queen Victoria School
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Queen Victoria School for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111758]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Queen Victoria School. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from Brian Raine to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence, about the targets for Queen Victoria School, as this falls within my area of responsibility being the Chief Executive of the Agency.
  It is pleasing to report that Queen Victoria School achieved all its Key Targets for 1998–99 and the results of that financial year's performance were included in the Annual Report and Accounts which were laid before Parliament on 26th July 1999. For your ease of reference, I am providing extract details of the Key Targets at Annex A.
  The Agency's Key Targets (KTs) are reviewed annually by the Board of HM Commissioners for the School and the Adjutant General's staff, to ensure targets are taut, realistic and demanding. No changes to the School's academic targets (KTs 1–3) are planned for the year 1999–2000, since these are considered sufficiently

  491W
  challenging by HM Commissioners, who have taken advice from HM inspectors. In line with the continuing drive for efficiency, the School's per capita rate which has remained largely unchanged fro 1999/2000, will be set at a lower and more challenging target for 2000/01. In addition the income generation target has been reviewed and a more challenging target is being proposed for 2000/01.

  Key Targets Achieved for 1998/99
  Target 1
  Achieve a staying on rate at School for S4 to S5 of at least 68% based on a 3-year trend.
  This target was achieved in that 69% stayed on from S4 to S5.
  Target 2
  Exceeded by 2% the average percentage pass rate for all Scottish presentations obtaining 5 or more Credit awards at Standard Grade.
  This target was achieved in that 34% attained at least 5 Credit awards at Standard Grade. The National average was 30%.
  Target 3
  Achieve a percentage of the presentations at Higher Grade achieving A to C grade greater than or equal to the Scottish average based on a 3-year trend.
  Based on the last 3 years the School average was 69% which is the same as the National average: thus the target was achieved.
  Target 4
  To achieve a pupil per capita cost of no more than £17,246 (at 1997/98 prices) by March 1999. 1997/98 target was £17,420.
  This target was achieved. The pupil per capita cost was £14,458.
  Target 5
  To generate commercial income to the School of at least £20,000.
  This target was achieved. Commercial income of £22,984 was generated.

  Army Base Repair Organisation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Army Base Repair Organisation for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111766]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Army Base Repair Organisation. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from J. R. Drew to Mr. Menzie Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about (a) those targets of the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO) for 1998/99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) the action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999/00. This falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive.
  The performance of the Agency against its Key Targets is published each in the ABRO Report and Accounts; a document that receives wide distribution to those within ABRO's sector of the defence community. In 1998/99 ABRO was set the five key targets listed at the Annex to this letter and achieved the required level of performance against all but one of them.
  In 1999/2000 ABRO has continued to focus on the delivery of service to the Armed Forces. At the same time, following the announcement in the Strategic Defence Review that ABRO should
  492W
  become a Trading Fund, a challenging change programme is being pursued to get the Agency to where it needs to be in order to vest as a Trading Fund. The Agency is on target to commence shadow trading with the Ministry of Defence on a progressive basis from April 2001. Formal Trading Fund Vesting is planned for April 2002. A full record of Agency activities and progress, including performance against its targets, will be included in the Report and Accounts for the year ending 31 March 2000, which will be available later in the year. I will ensure that you receive a copy.

  ABRO Performance against its key targets for 1998/99:

  Key target 1—Throughput Target
  To deliver a responsive service which matches the needs of the customer in peace and for operations to the agreed timeliness, quantity and quality criteria, to the maximum extent possible with available resources.
  Result—achieved

  Key target 2—Financial Performance Target
  To remain within ABRO's allocated budget
  Result—not achieved
  The allocated cash budget for the Agency was £141.6M, while spend amounted to £144.8M, which was 2.3% over allocation. This exceeds the +/-1.5% tolerance set as the performance indicator for this target. However ABRO deliberately brought forward planned capital expenditure from 1999/00 to 1998/99 and this action contributed to higher budgetary level requirements. Consequently, it had an unfortunately effect upon the ABRO key target.

  Key target 3—Efficiency Target
  To reduce the ratio of labour costs to hours of production by 2% from those of the averaged last three years.
  Result—achieved

  Key target 4—Quality Target
  To deliver objective measures of customer satisfaction
  Result—achieved

  Key target 5—Milestone Target
  To deliver an Implementation plan embracing the endorsed recommendations from the Agency and ES Next Steps Reviews.
  Result—achieved.

  RAF Logistic Support Services
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the RAF Logistic Support Services for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111757]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Logistics Support Services Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from K. A. Bradshaw to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  Parliamentary questions from the right hon. Menzies Campbell CBE QC MP (Liberal Democrats) (Fife North East) concerning the achievement of logistics support services agency key targets:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about achievement of Logistics Support Services Agency

  493W
  (LSSA) key targets as the matter falls within my area of responsibility. I have numbered the replies to match your questions.

  a. LSSA targets

  (1) Achieved:

  Percentage

  1998–99

  Serial

  Key target from LSSA corporate plan

  Target

  Outturn

  1.

  To produce deliverables by the target date agreed with the sponsor

  85

  89

  2.

  To deliver outputs at the cost agreed with the sponsor

  80

  81

  3.

  To produce deliverables to the sponsor's complete satisfaction

  90

  97

  This year was the first that pan-agency performance targets were set. As we had no knowledge of what was achievable, the targets were tentative. Nevertheless, the targets at serials 1 to 3 were all achieved.

  (2) Not Achieved

  Percentage

  1998–99

  Serial

  Key target from LSSA corporate plan

  Target

  Outturn

  4.

  To achieve a reduction in the cost of a productive hour

  3

  See below

  It was not possible to ascertain the reduction in the cost of a productive hour in 1998–99 because there was no agency-wide system available to record man-hours. Although the LSSA Task and Resource Accounting Management (TRAMS) System was introduced to perform this function, its roll out was delayed by technical problems.

  b. Action taken:

  The targets for 1999–2000 in the Corporate Plan, which has been placed in the library of the House, remained the same as those for 1989–1999. This was recognition of the immaturity of our target setting. However, the 2000–2001 targets had been made more challenging as follows: serial 1–90%, serial 2–85%, serial 392%. The target for serial 4 remained unaltered at 3%. However, TRAMS is now is use in the majority of LSS business areas and the data recorded during 1999–2000 will establish a productive hour baseline for future years.

  Naval Manning Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Naval Manning agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111761]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Naval Manning Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from Jeremy de Halpert to Mr. Menzies Campbell dated 6 March 2000:
  In your recent Parliamentary Question, you sought a range of information concerning the targets placed upon the Naval Management Agency (NMA) for 1998–99. You also asked what
  494W
  action the Agency had taken to improve performance against its targets in 1990–00. I have been asked to reply as the Chief Executive of the NMA.
  The information you requested is attached to this letter. Details of NMA's performance against its targets will be published shortly in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for 1998–99. I will arrange for a copy of the Report to be sent to you as soon as it is available.
  I hope this is helpful.
  Naval Manning Agency—Performance Against Targets—1998–99 Deployment
  Filled Officer Billets:

  Target: Greater than 94%—Met

  Achieved: 94.2%

  Overall performance continued to be satisfactory. A similar outturn to last year has been achieved despite a more difficult manning climate that has seen a deterioration in the balance of the Office Strength to Requirement. The RN was 280 Officers short of its requirement as at 1 February 1999 compared to 149 Officers on 1 April 1998.
  Filled Rating/Other Rank Billets
  Targets:

  Ratings: greater than 89%—Not met

  Royal Marines Other Ranks greater than 88%—Not met

  Achieved:

  Ratings: 87.4%

  Royal Marines Other Ranks 85.3%

  The NMA's performance is little changed from last year (88% and 85.1% respectively) and should be viewed in the light of the difficulties faced by the recruiting Agency in 1998–99 in meeting requested gains to the trained strength.
  In year, a defining balance of Strength to Requirement was evident for Royal Navy Ratings and Royal Marines Other Ranks but the rate of decline has now been arrested. This has been achieved through a combination of close monitoring of gains to the trained strength and Premature Voluntary Release figures and greater accuracy in the forecasting and monitoring of demographic trends. This work is being developed during 1990–00. The introduction of the five year second open engagement (20E(5), to complement the existing ten year 20E, has also provided the Agency with added flexibility in its manpower management.
  Manpower Planning

  Variation of Strength to Requirement

  Target: Plus 1% to Minus 2%—Not met

  Achieved: Minus 3.3%

  This figure is calculated on the basis of a 3-year running average. This reporting method takes into consideration an element of the lag between planning decisions and the consequent inflow of trained manpower and provides a more effective and accurate measure of the NMA's planning performance than an in year 12 month running average.
  The NMA's Owner has reduced the upper level of the target for 1999–00 form 11% to zero to reflect the manning difficulties encountered in 1998–99 and ensure that the aim is directed at meeting future manpower requirements without over-providing.
  Career Management

  Percentage of Officers receiving the required Notice of Move 2

  Target: Greater than 60%—Met

  Achieved: 67.6%

  495W
  The disparity between this target and that for ratings/other ranks reflects the ability of Officers to negotiate their next career move directly with their Appointing Officer
  Percentage of Ratings/Other Ranks receiving the required Notice of Move 2

  Target: Greater than 98%—Met

  Achieved: 99.5%

  The continuing imbalance between Strength and Requirement has made the achievement of this target particularly challenging
  Percentage drafts where Minimum Time Ashore (MTA) 3 criteria are met
  Target: 99%—Met
  Achieved: 99.9%
  While the NMA has met this target, the difficult manpower supply climate has led to a growth in the number of personnel nearing the MTA criteria
  Efficiency

  Numeric Reduction in Gapping

  Target: 7.5% reduction in gapping—Not met

  Achieved: 7%

  The high degree of deploying turbulence and recruiting difficulties experienced in 1998–99 limited the scope for reducing the level of gapping. Earlier efficiencies in the utilisation of the manning margin have also reduced the potential for further savings. To reflect these factors, the Agency's target for the coming year has been adjusted to 5%.The NMA successfully introduced its Customer Review process in summer 1998. This has helped the Agency to develop its understanding of the issues, besides gapping, that are of concern to its customers. The process has also led to several changes in the way the Agency operates, especially in terms of its external communication and data presentation. The NMA is confident that this will be reflected in the results obtained from the Review, which commenced in April 1999. Additionally, it is intended that the European Foundation Quality Management Model should be introduced into the Agency. This will ensure that NMA continues to develop along the most effective lines and that its performance reflects best practice.
  Benchmarking Exercises

  Target: Two exercises—Met

  Achieved: Two exercises

  The NMA's Customer Review Process was the list of these exercises. The second exercise was conducted with the RAF.

  Financial

  Production of Accounts

  Target: To produce Accounts for Period from April 99 to March 99—Met

  Achieved: Accounts laid in January 2000.

  Comment: None

  1 Within four months of change of their employment2 Less than three months for shore service and five months for sea service3 The Minimum Time Ashore criterion is a Personnel Management Standard that aims to ensure a reasonable amount of time ashore between sea-going drafts. It differs between Rates and length of Service in a sea draft and is not applicable to Officers.

  Defence Secondary Care Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Defence Secondary Care Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111755]
  496W
  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from C. G. Callow to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  Performance Against Key Targets
  1. I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the Defence Secondary Care Agency's (DSCA) performance in meeting its 1998/99 Key Targets and the steps the Agency is taking to improve upon this in 1999/2000. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the DSCA.
  2. The Agency's Key Targets for 1998/99 and its performance in delivering these is set out on page 21 of the Agency's 1998/99 Annual Report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. The 1999/2000 Key Targets are shown on page 22.
  3. I am aware that Key Targets are designed to set and stimulate year-on-year improvement in Agency performance and I am committed to meeting challenging targets for the DSCA. However, these targets must also be realistic.
  4. In 1998/99 the DSCA believed that real performance in patient waiting times was masked by inadequate data reporting systems and that improvements would emerge both by better reporting and better achievement. Neither assumption materialised and it became clear that some targets were out of reach and that adjustments had to be made when setting the Agency's 1999/2000 Key Targets. Accordingly, the performance measurement in respect of Key Target 2 was reduced to the 1997/98 level. However, continuing shortages of clinical manpower, coupled with operational demands upon a limited resource, mean that achievement of the Agency's 1999/2000 Key Targets, even where reduced to 1997/98 levels, continues to pose a stiff challenge.
  5. Nevertheless, as a result of great effort, the Agency has to date achieved its Key Target 1, which it regards as the highest priority for the Agency, and it is taking active steps to improve waiting time performance. A senior officer has been appointed with specific responsibility for performance management and the Agency meets regularly with representatives from the single Services to discuss ways of improving patient throughput, for example, by reducing the incidence of Service 'Did Not Attend' appointments. Other patient filtering mechanisms have also been introduced, for example, in the field of orthopaedics, the speciality most in demand by the Services. This aims to identify those patients whose conditions do not require them to see a consultant and who could be treated outwith the Agency by primary care physiotherapists, thereby enabling the DSCA to treat more patients. Again manpower difficulties, coupled with the need to introduce new financial accounting systems, have hindered progress in developing new efficiency targets for the Agency but this is being addressed. The Agency is making great strides in the field of Clinical Governance. Individual military training requirements have been reflected in the Agency's Corporate Training Plan and the Agency is discussing with the single Services ways of de-conflicting exercise requirements to spread the impact on the Agency, thus enabling it to meet its obligations in the area most easily.
  6. I hope this is helpful.

  Pay and Personnel Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Pay and Personnel Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111759]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Pay and Personnel Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.
  497W
  Letter from M. A. Rowe to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 6 March 2000:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the targets of the Pay & Personnel Agency as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Pay & Personnel Agency is responsible for providing pay and personnel services for the Ministry of Defence. The Agency's performance against its key targets for 1998/99 was reported in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts, House of Commons Paper No. 595, which was laid before the House on 16 July 1999.
  The key targets covered performance in the areas of service delivery, customer satisfaction, efficiency, systems, and people. All targets were achieved except those covering the timeliness of payments, where performance ranged from 97.3% to 99.9% against the aim of 100%, and the achievement of Investors in People accreditation. With several million payments to make each year across all areas of the PPA's business these shortfalls were the result of inevitable but minimal processing errors. Recognising this realism but also the need not to abandon the aim of payment on time every time, the key service delivery targets for the current year have included just a single Agency wide target of 100%. During 1998/1999 the Agency launched a major internal efficiency review which has now delivered efficiency savings well above the Departmental target but which persuaded us to defer the Investors in People assessment in view of the temporary turbulence caused by the review. Training was also a factor and the Agency is carrying out an intensive training programme which is intended to improve performance across the range of services provided and which will contribute to the Agency's aim to achieve Investors in People accreditation before the end of this financial year.

  Weather Information
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements will exist for the provision of weather information for aircrew using the Northumberland low-flying area following the planned closure of the manned Meteorological Office stations at RAF Boulmer and at Newcastle. [112824]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Ewins to Mr. Alan Beith, dated 6 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the provision of weather information for aircrew using the Northumberland Low-Flying Area (LFA 12). This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of The Met. Office.
  Forecasts for LFA 12 are prepared by our forecasters at military airfields. They use a range of data including observations from Newcastle Weather Centre and RAF Boulmer, and also computer-generated forecasts, rainfall radar, satellite imagery and observations from other sites, like Carlisle, Eskdalemuir, Spadeadam and Newcastle airport.
  The provision of these forecasts will not be adversely affected by changes we are making to our network of weather centres and observations sites. Nor will their quality. We recognise that our customers, both public and private, are under pressure to reduce their costs, which, in turn, will continue to place downward pressure on Met. Office prices. We are, therefore, continuing to put emphasis on the lowering of unit costs, while at the same time improving the quality of output. Increased automation and rationalisation of our forecasting and observations networks are important parts of this strategy.
  When Newcastle Weather Centre closes, an automatic observing station will be retained. Similarly, if a decision is taken to cease manned observations at RAF Boulmer, an automatic system will be maintained in that area. While these automatic systems do not provide all of the elements contained in a 'human' observation, they
  498W
  are capable of reporting more frequently and will be enhanced as new sensors are developed. They may also have co-located CCTV cameras; two such cameras will soon e deployed at Eskdalemuir and St Mary's Loch and will provide useful additional data for aircraft operating in the Borders area.
  In summary, the 'human' elements of the observations from Boulmer and Newcastle Weather Centre are not crucial to the task of forecasting for LFA 12 and, given the other advances that are being introduced, I can assure you that there will be no degradation in the service provided to aircrew using the area.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many de-mining staff his Department has in(a) Mostar and (b) Pristina. [113353]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no British military Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) personnel in Mostar. One team of four personnel is currently based in Pristina, and there are three further teams at other locations in Kosovo.

  Under UN arrangements in Kosovo, demining is predominantly the task of a number of commercial contractors and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). British military EOD teams undertake demining tasks in support of KFOR operations, although they have also responded positively to local requests to clear unexploded ordnance where there was a pressing humanitarian need.

  Food Products (Welfare Standards)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the prescribed welfare standards which govern imported food products supplied to HM Forces. [112967]

  Dr. Moonie
  The supply of food products to HM Forces by its contractor "3663" is governed by contract conditions based on UK and EC trade quality standards. In the case of meat sourced in EC countries this is based on standards laid down by the EC Meat Commission and set down in The Meat Buyers Guide.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to deploy(a) HMS 'Ocean' and (b) other RN ships to Mozambique. [112970]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have diverted the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Fort George from the Gulf. The ship is currently en route to Mozambique to assist in the international relief effort; we have no plans to divert HMS 'Ocean' or other RN ships at this time.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Commission Reform
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made on Commission reform since the joint declaration at the British-Italian summit of July 1999. [112343]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Council of Ministers has discussed Commission reform on several occasions since the British-Italian Summit in July 1999. This year, in January, the Commission published the Kinnock report, which the Government strongly support.

  "Your Britain, Your Europe"
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the basis of his oral statement of 15 February 2000,Official Report, column 760, that 3.5 million jobs depend on UK membership of the European Union. [112388]

  Mr. Vaz
  The figure reflects the jobs ultimately dependent on British exports to the other 14 members of the European Union. It includes jobs in indigenous British businesses exporting to the rest of the EU, inward investors locating here as a result of our being the gateway to the whole of the Single Market, and enterprises who in turn make supplies to those companies. It excludes jobs dependent on exports to the fast-growing markets of the EU applicant countries.

  The figure is in line with independent research carried out for Britain in Europe by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and by Professor Iain Begg at the South Bank University. Both of these reports conclude that over three million jobs are linked with our membership of the European Union.

  Press Rebuttal Unit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance he has issued to his Department's EU Press Rebuttal Unit; what is its cost in the current financial year; how many staff are assigned to it; and how many rebuttals it has issued to date. [112424]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have decided to rebut press articles which contain factual inaccuracies about Government policy towards Europe or our membership of the EU. This entails no extra costs to the FCO budget. There are no dedicated FCO staff assigned to this task. Since the beginning of the year, I have written 17 rebuttals, of which seven have been published.

  MOX Fuel
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions since 15 December 1999 he, other Ministers and officials of his Department, have raised with Japanese Ministers and officials nuclear commerce and MOX plutonium exports to Japan; and if he will place in the Library copies of all correspondence since May 1997 he has had with Japanese Ministers or officials on MOX plutonium fuel. [112357]

  Mr. Hain
  Since 15 December, the only occasion when FCO Ministers have discussed nuclear commerce and MOX fuel exports with Japanese Ministers was on 12 January, when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Japanese Foreign Minister in London. There have been many occasions when these subjects have been raised between FCO and Japanese officials. These contacts are commonplace under the UK/Japan Nuclear Co-operation Agreement on the Peaceful Use of Atomic Energy.

  I have not corresponded with Japanese Ministers or officials on MOX fuel since May 1997.

  Nuclear Policy
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if the work of the 500W
  Anglo-French Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy and Doctrine has led to adoption of joint positions with France in international bodies or forums; [112417]

  (2) what activities have been undertaken in the Anglo-French Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy and Doctrine since January 1998; and if he will place in the Library the (a) reports and (b) other documents produced by the Joint Commission since that date; [112421]

  (3) on how many occasions since 1992 officials of the French Government have visited his Department to discuss nuclear co-operation; and if he will make a statement; [112420]

  (4) on how many occasions since 1992 officials from his Department have visited France to discuss nuclear co-operation; and if he will make a statement; [112419]

  (5) if he will list the official discussions and meetings between Ministers and officials in his Department and their French counterparts since November 1995 to pursue the implementation of the 1995 Anglo-French Joint Statement on Nuclear Co-operation; [112418]

  (6) what discussions involving Ministers and officials of his Department have recently taken place or are planned within the Anglo-French Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy and Doctrine concerning joint or co-ordinated nuclear missile submarine patrols with the French Navy. [112422]

  Mr. Vaz
  British and French officials meet frequently to discuss nuclear issues of mutual interest. One powerful example of the co-operation which has resulted was the UK and France jointly depositing our instruments of ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in April 1998.

  The UK/French Joint Nuclear Commission normally meets at official level every six months, alternately in London and paris. The Commission's discussions cover a wide range of issues, but they exclude, by joint agreement, the operational aspects of our respective deterrent forces. There are no plans for joint or co-ordinated submarine patrols.

  I am withholding records of these meetings under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the European Commissioner, Mr. Javier Solana about the numbers of international police officers in Kosovo. [112485]

  Mr. Hain
  The European Secretary General/High Representative, Mr. Javier Solana, appealed to EU Foreign Ministers at the beginning of February for more police officers for UNIP. This followed a request from the UN for additional police deployments, to which we have responded by doubling our contribution to the UN international police force in Kosovo.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations have been made to him by the head of UNMIK, about the numbers of international police officers in Kosovo; [112488]
  501W
  (2) what representations he has received from the UN Secretary-General about the numbers of international police officers in Kosovo. [112486]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK, along with its Quint, EU and G8 partners, is in regular contact with Secretary-General Annan and his Special Representative for Kosovo, Bernard Kouchner, about all aspects of the international effort in Kosovo, including the need for more police officers. The UN Secretariat has made two requests for police officers, both of which the UK has been able to respond to positively, bringing the total number of UK police officers pledged to UNIP to 120.

  Pakistan
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of difficulties experienced by former Pakistani politicians returning to Pakistan from the UK; and what monitoring the High Commission is carrying out. [112489]

  Mr. Hain
  We are not aware of any problems faced by former Pakistani politicians returning to Pakistan from the UK. Our High Commission in Islamabad continues to follow closely all aspects of life in Pakistan, including the political scene.

  New Public Bodies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the new public bodies established by his Department since May 1997. [112670]

  Mr. Hain
  The annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies" provides information on a range of public bodies. The 1997 edition lists those public bodies in existence prior to May 1997. The 1998 and 1999 editions list public bodies in existence in subsequent years. Copies of these publications have been placed in the Library of the House. Copies are also available on the Cabinet Office website (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/quango).

  Since the publication of the 1999 edition of "Public Bodies", no new public bodies have been established. However the Commonwealth Institute has ceased to be a FCO non-departmental public body and is now an independent charity, as I announced to the house on 1 February 2000, Official Report, column 542W.

  United Nations Human Rights Commission
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the British Government have to raise the human rights situations in(a) China, (b) Mexico and (c) Burma at the forthcoming session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. [112674]

  Mr. Hain
  The information is as follows:

  China
  We are at present discussing with our EU partners our policies on China at this years Commission on Human Rights (CHR).

  Burma
  The UK, together with EU partners, will jointly table a strong resolution on Burma at CHR. The resolution will refer to the whole catalogue of human rights violations in Burma and call for the UN Special Rapporteur to be allowed access.
  502W
  Mexico
  We are committed to helping Mexico improve its human rights record. But where criticism is due, the UK will support a strong reference to Mexico in the EU omnibus country statement at the CHR.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the costs of GCHQ are met by the United States Government. [113119]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  None of GCHQ's costs are met by the US Government.

  Congo
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors were taken into account in evaluating applications for export licences for arms to parties involved in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [112702]

  Mr. Hain
  We uphold the EU arms embargo (imposed 7 April 1993), which prohibits the export of equipment on the Military List from the EU to the DRC. We are similarly upholding the UK sanctions on nongovernmental forces in Rwanda, which also apply to the sale and supply of arms to neighbouring states if they are for use in Rwanda; and on UNITA rebels in Angola.

  Since 28 July 1997, we have examined export licence applications to all destinations against the new criteria that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced that day, Official Report, columns 26–29W. In addition, we have also examined applications against the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Sales since it was agreed in June 1998.

  The Prime Minister's reply to a question from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 9 February 2000, Official Report, columns 184–85, set out the basis of our new tighter policy on arms sales to countries intervening in the DRC.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what involvement his Department has had recently in attempting to find a political solution to the problems of the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if he will make a statement. [112697]

  Mr. Hain
  Britain is playing an active and constructive role in international efforts to resolve the crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I represented Britain at January's Security Council meeting, which secured re-endorsement of the Lusaka Agreement and strong support for the deployment of a UN observer force. On 23 February, I chaired a meeting of UK Heads of Mission and US, French, Belgian and EU representatives in Nairobi to discuss the way forward in bringing peace to DRC. On 24 February, Britain supported the Security Council Resolution authorising a 5,500-strong observer force as the next phase of the UN mission.

  Our aim now is to help all the parties implement the Lusaka Agreement; support the early deployment of the UN observer force as soon as conditions allow; get the national dialogue on the future governance of DRC under-way; and keep DRC on the international agenda.
  503W
  We are already providing practical support: British officers are deployed in the region as part of the UN mission and we have made contributions of £160,000 to the Joint Military Commission and £25,000 to the national dialogue. We are ready to do more, as the parties actively demonstrate their commitment to the Lusaka Agreement.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have ratified the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court; and when he expects the UK to ratify the treaty. [112925]

  Mr. Hain
  Seven countries have ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to date: Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, San Marino, Italy, Fiji, Ghana and Norway. The UK will ratify as soon as the necessary primary legislation has been passed.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to introduce draft legislation to enable the UK to comply with the treaty to establish an international criminal court. [112928]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) on 1 December 1999,Official Report, column 258W.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of human rights in Chechnya is being undertaken by his Department; and what departmental representatives have visited Chechnya. [112696]

  Mr. Vaz
  We monitor a wide range of sources on the human rights situation in Chechnya, including international humanitarian and human rights organisations and the Russian and Western media. An FCO official visited Chechnya as part of an OSCE delegation in February 1995; he was subsequently seconded to the OSCE Assistance Group in Grozny from August to December 1996 and served as an election observer in the Chechen Presidential elections in January 1997. No departmental representatives have visited Chechnya since then, in view of the serious deterioration of the security situation. But our Embassy in Moscow and experts in London continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent involvement his Department has had in the search for a peaceful solution to the conflict in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. [112703]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave on 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 416W and 6 December 1999, Official Report, column 401W.

  India and Pakistan
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors were taken into 504W
  account by his Department in the evaluation of export licence applications to (a) India and (b) Pakistan during 1998. [112700]

  Mr. Hain
  All export licence applications to India and Pakistan are considered on a case-by-case basis against the UK national criteria on arms sales and, since June 1998, the EU code of conduct. Following India and Pakistan's nuclear tests in May 1998, the UK introduced additional measures. These measures are set out in the statement made to the House by the then Minister of State, the hon. the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), on 10 July 1998,Official Report, columns 687–88.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the agreement relating to the loan of Diego Garcia to the United States with special reference to the stocking of anti-personnel land mines. [113352]

  Mr. Vaz
  The 1966 Exchange of Notes between the UK and the USA concerning the availability of the British Indian Ocean Territory for defence purposes provides for the Territory to remain available to meet the defence needs of both Governments, while remaining under UK sovereignty. There are no US APM on Diego Garcia. We understand that the US stores munitions of various kinds on US warships anchored off Diego Garcia. Such vessels enjoy state immunity and are therefore outside the UK's jurisdiction and control. The US understands the importance we attach to their adherence to the Ottawa Convention as soon as possible.

  Hawk Jets
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the advice he has received on resuming the licensing of Hawk jets to(a) Indonesia and (b) Zimbabwe. [113213]

  Mr. Hain
  This Government have not issued any export licences for the sale of Hawk jets to either Indonesia or Zimbabwe. Such licences were, however, issued by the previous Administration.

  Gibraltar (R2)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations, at what level, were made to the Spanish Foreign Ministry following the diversion of the Renaissance cruise liner R2 from its intended docking in Gibraltar on 27 February; [113132]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the diversion of Renaissance cruise liner R2 scheduled to dock at Gibraltar on 27 February; [113133]

  (3) when he will advise the European Commission on the circumstances surrounding the diversion of the Renaissance cruise liner R2 from its intended docking in Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement on the implications of this incident for (a) Community law compliance and (b) bilateral relations with Spain. [113131]

  Mr. Vaz
  The British Ambassador in Madrid raised the issue of the Renaissance Cruises liner R2 with the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Spanish Prime
  505W
  Minister's Office over the weekend. The Spanish Ambassador in London was summoned to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 28 February to discuss the issue. Later the same day, the Spanish Government's spokesman said that the problem relating to movements of this vessel between Gibraltar and Spanish ports had been resolved. The liner R2 docked in Gibraltar on schedule on 2 March.

  The vessel in question is American-owned and Liberian-registered. We are not aware of European Community law directly relevant to the exact circumstances of this case.

  East Timor
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his UN counterparts concerning the establishment of an international tribunal to try those suspected of crimes against humanity and human rights violations in East Timor. [112827]

  Mr. Hain
  We have held extensive discussions at the UN and elsewhere, including with the Indonesian Government and the East Timorese leaders, on how to ensure those responsible for the grave human rights violations in East Timor are brought to justice.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received concerning fighting in the Heglig and Unity oil fields in Sudan. [112832]

  Mr. Hain
  We continue to receive troubling reports of fighting in the Upper Nile; most recently last week. Much of the fighting is factional, but there have also been attacks on Government forces.

  The SPLA and other opposition forces have made clear that they see oil installations as military targets.

  Peace in the Sudan remains a priority. The UK has been and will continue to be active in promoting peace in the Sudan.

  Timorese Refugees
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Indonesia regarding the repatriation of East Timorese refugees; [112825]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning UNHCR access to refugees in West Timor; and if he will make a statement. [112826]

  Mr. Battle
  We have received several representations about access to the refugee camps in West Timor for UNHCR and other agencies. I visited the camps myself on 19 January to see at first hand the situation on the ground. Our Ambassador and others from our Jakarta Embassy have also visited since then. Over 140,000 refugees have now returned to East Timor, but up to 100,000 remain. We are concerned that militia activity continues in the camps, but are encouraged by reports that security forces have recently been dispatched to ensure the safety of officials and aid agency representatives as they try to establish the wishes of the remaining refugees. While many of them may choose not to return, we will 506W
  continue to press the Indonesian authorities to allow those who wish to return to East Timor to do so safely and securely.

HEALTH

  Voluntary Organisations
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the salary on-call payments and mileage payments made to senior staff of Integrate Services while the organisation was in receipt of a section 64 grant. [104822]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans at this time to investigate the salary on-call payments and mileage payments made to senior staff of Integrate Services while the organisation was in receipt of a grant under section 64 of the 1968 Act. Health authorities make section 64 grants to voluntary organisations out of their general allocation. Section 64 grants are subject to the rules and scrutiny processes for propriety and regularity that govern all health authority expenditure. Integrate Services is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Charity Commissioners.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to investigate the use of a section 64 grant by Integrate Services to purchase holiday facilities; and if he will make a statement. [104819]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans at this time to investigate the purchase of holiday facilities by Integrate Services while in receipt of a grant under section 64 of the 1968 Act. Health authorities make section 64 grants to voluntary organisations out of their general allocation. Section 64 grants are subject to the rules and scrutiny processes for propriety and regularity that govern all health authority expenditure. Integrate Services is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Charity Commissioners.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that all organisations in receipt of section 64 grants comply with the requirements of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. [111821]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 protects workers who disclose information about certain types of matters from being dismissed or penalised by their employers as a result. Section 64 grants awarded by health authorities are subject to the rules and scrutiny processes for propriety and regularity that govern all health authority expenditure. Section 64 grants awarded by Ministers to national voluntary organisations include a condition that a voluntary organisation, and anyone acting on its behalf, must comply with the law for the time being in force in the United Kingdom.

  Asperger's Syndrome
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support the Government are providing for research into the causes and treatment of Asperger's Syndrome. [112690]
  507W
  Mr. Hutton
  The Medical Research Council (MRC)—which receives most of its income via grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—is the main agency through which the Government support research on the causes and treatment of clinical conditions. In 1998–99 the MRC's spend on research related to autism and Asperger's Syndrome was £1.03 million. The National Research Register also contains details of work supported through the National Health Service Research and development levy or from other sources. It lists a number of Asperger's Syndrome projects currently in progress or recently completed.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support the Government are providing to organisations catering for the needs of adult suffers of Asperger's Syndrome. [112688]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are currently funding a three-year project which the National Autistic Society is undertaking to identify the support and care needs of people with Asperger's Syndrome. A key objective of this work is to disseminate the findings to local authorities, other service providers and professionals. These will inform improvements and additions to local provision of services for this group.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate the Government have made of the number of sufferers of Asperger's Syndrome(a) below and (b) above the age of 18 years. [112687]

  Mr. Hutton
  Prevalence of Asperger's Syndrome in England is uncertain. A recent estimate provided to the Department is that it appears to affect one child in every 350. This suggests that the number of people in England with Asperger's Syndrome might be approximately 140,000.

  Pensions Agency
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future status of the NHS Pensions Agency. [113419]

  Mr. Milburn
  A quinquennial review of the NHS Pensions Agency completed in 1998 concluded that the Agency had performed well since it was established and in particular had successfully implemented a major programme of change to improved efficiency and the quality of service to all its customers. I am placing a copy of the report in the Library today.

  In the first instance I have decided to leave administration of the core NHS Superannuation Scheme within the Agency but I have committed them to outsource, under one facilities management contract, the Agency's support and ancillary services. This contract will cover at least 55 per cent. of the Agency's current running costs. I have tasked the Agency in partnership with the supplier to secure further improvements in efficiency that approach the best returns forecast by the review for full contractorisation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Take-up (Rural Areas)
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the level of take-up of benefits in rural areas. [111851]

  Mr. Bayley
  Information on the level of take-up of benefits specifically in rural areas is not available.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last reviewed his target for the reduction of benefit fraud for the year 2000–01. [111852]

  Mr. Rooker
  As published in the Public Service Agreement, for the first time we have set a single outcome target to reduce fraud and error in the two major benefits by 30 per cent. by March 2007, with at least a 10 per cent. reduction by March 2002.

  The latest results were published by the Government Statistical Service on 28 January 2000.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the level of fraud within the social security system. [111862]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are determined to reduce the level of fraud and error in the Social Security system. We are now measuring the level of fraud and error, in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance, the two most vulnerable benefits, by thoroughly investigating a monthly random sample of cases in each Benefit Agency area. These measurements allow us, for the first time, to set targets for cutting fraud against which our progress can be judged.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will report on progress in tackling housing benefit fraud. [111866]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's oral answer to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) today,Official Report, column 756.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were employed in the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service on 1 March in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000. [112789]

  Mr. Rooker
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Oliver Heald, dated 3 March 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people were employed in the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service on 1st March in (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000.[112789]
  The figures below represent the number of staff in post for the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service (BFIS) for each operational year since April 1996. Figures for specific dates are not available.

  509W

  BFIS

  Total

  1996–97

  5,000

  1997–98

  5,184

  1998–99

  5,183

  1999–2000

  15,064

  1 Figure correct as at October 1999, end of year figures not yet available

  I hope this is helpful.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on Housing Benefit for students. [111853]

  Angela Eagle
  Most full-time students are supported by the student support system which is designed to meet their needs. Full-time students in the vulnerable groups are entitled to claim Housing Benefit as are part-time students.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department will issue a standard housing benefit form for those local authorities not participating in the verification framework scheme. [112155]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department is considering the supplementary recommendations of John Scampion's report on organised benefit fraud that a common "baseline" application form for Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB) should be introduced following consultation with local government and the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to help disabled people stay in work. [111855]

  Mr. Bayley
  The New Deal for Disabled People pilots have already helped over 2,000 disabled people to move into or stay in employment. The Disabled Person's Tax Credit is helping to make work pay; and our recently announced improvements in the support provided by the Independent Living Funds are intended to help severely disabled people to keep a higher proportion of their income from work.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on progress made with the New Deal for the Disabled. [111863]

  Mr. Bayley
  The New Deal for Disabled People is piloting a range of measures. The results have been very encouraging, with over 2,000 disabled clients starting work so far. We are now considering how the help provided by this New Deal might be extended in the light of the lessons emerging from the pilots.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are eligible to benefit from the minimum income guarantee; and how many have done so. [111856]
  510W
  Mr. Bayley
  Around 1.5 million pensioners are already receiving their Minimum Income Guarantee through income support. We must now turn our attention to 500,000 pensioners, more who may not be claiming their Minimum Income Guarantee. We will be announcing details of the national campaign shortly.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a guide to pensioners' entitlement to the minimum income guarantee; and how it can be claimed. [112555]

  Mr. Bayley
  The minimum income guarantee is delivered through Income Support. Details on pensioners' entitlement and how to make a claim are contained in the Income Support guide, IS20. I am a placing copy in the Library.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people aged 65 years and over are currently receiving the minimum income guarantee in(a) the Leeds, Central parliamentary constituency and
  (b) the City of Leeds. [112552]

  Mr. Bayley
  The minimum income guarantee relates to income support pensioners. The information is in the table.

  Income support pensioners aged 65 and over, by parliamentary constituency—November 1999

  Thousands

  Constituency

  Pensioners aged 65 and over

  Leeds Central

  2.9

  Leeds East

  2.4

  Leeds North East

  2.4

  Leeds North West

  1.6

  Leeds West

  2.4

  Elmet

  1.5

  Morley and Rothwell

  2.1

  Pudsey

  2.1

  Notes:

  1. Sample size 5 per cent., therefore subject to sampling error.

  2. Pensioners are defined as benefit units where either the claimant and/or their partner is aged 65 years or over.

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 1999.

  Income Support
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to raise the current savings thresholds for income support. [111857]

  Mr. Bayley
  We will bring forward our proposals later.

  Lone Parents
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the impact of Government measures since May 1997 on the level of benefit dependency among lone parents. [111858]

  Angela Eagle
  Lone parents are benefiting from the raft of measures introduced by this Government to help them move into work and to ensure that work pays. These include the New Deal for Lone Parents; the Lone Parent's Benefit Run-On; the Working Families Tax Credit (including the child care tax credit) the National Childcare Strategy and the National Minimum Wage.
  511W
  NDLP has helped over 41,000 lone parents obtain jobs, one in three of those participating in the programme. The evaluation of the NDLP prototype phase showed that it had a small positive effect on the number of lone parents moving off Income Support.

  New Pensioners (Payments)
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on delays in the calculation and the making of payments to new pensioners. [111860]

  Mr. Rooker
  Most State Pensions are being paid to new pensioners within the normal clearance target timescales. The National Insurance Recording System computer (NIRS2) is providing the information to enable the Benefits Agency to invite people approaching pension age to claim their pension and to process the claim on receipt.

  However, NIRS2 cannot provide the additional pension (SERPS) component of the pension award in all cases. The Benefits Agency has put in place contingency arrangements to make clerical calculations in these cases. Extra staff have been provided for this.

  Welfare to Work
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further proposals he has to assist those moving from welfare to work. [111861]

  Angela Eagle
  Welfare to Work is a key priority for us. We believe in a modern welfare state which encourages and helps people to work when they can, as well as providing support for them when they cannot. We have already set in place many innovative projects, some involving the public and private sectors working in partnership, to do just that.

  We have a wide range of initiatives already in place, including the New Deal for Young People and the New Deal for Lone Parents which have helped over 200,000 find employment, and the New Deal for Disabled People which is providing practical help enabling those who want to work to realise their ambitions. Two million disabled people already work and over one million more want to. From April this year, the New Deal for the Over 50s will be rolled out nationally.

  In addition, the ONE Service is currently being tested in 12 pilot areas around the UK. This offers personalised advice and support through a Personal Adviser to those of working age. Participation in ONE is, at present, voluntary but, from April this year, participation in a work-focused meeting with a personal adviser will become part of the normal process for people of working age claiming benefits in the pilot areas.

  These reforms link in with the wider Government agenda. Colleagues in the Treasury and the Inland Revenue are ensuring that work pays by improving in-work incomes through initiatives such as the National Minimum Wage and the Working Families Tax Credit.

  Pensions
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the public's knowledge about pensions and saving for retirement. [111867]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 7 February 2000,Official Report, column 5W.

  ONE Service
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of the ONE service. [111868]

  Angela Eagle
  All 12 of the ONE pilots are successfully operating in various parts of the country. We are already helping people plan ways to become more independent. We are improving the level of service we provide by ensuring that the Benefits Agency, Employment Service, local authorities and private and voluntary sector bodies work in partnership.

  Although it is too early to judge the level of success we have had in helping people move from welfare into work, the initial response from clients using the new service has been very encouraging.

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has made to the Ombudsman about his inquiry into the administration of the state earnings-related pension scheme. [111854]

  Mr. Rooker
  With the Department's assistance, the Ombudsman has been investigating four sample complaints from individuals about the inheritance of SERPS. We look forward to receiving his report.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the process for checking the accuracy of arrears statements at the time when existing child support cases are transferred to the new system for child support. [111777]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Kidney, dated 3 March 2000:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.
  The process of migrating data from the existing Child Support Computer System to the new system will be complex and work is being undertaken to asses show this is to be achieved. No decisions have yet been made on a preferred approach. However, the Agency is committed to performing case checks on all live cases bringing assessments up to date where appropriate prior to migration of cases to the new system.
  From 30 May 2000, changes are being made to the existing Child Support Computer System to enable non-resident parents, and parents with care, to receive payment statements on a regular basis.

  513W
  The statement will explain how any arrears balance has been calculated. Procedures are in place to enable cases to be corrected where inaccuracies are detected.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Vaccine Damage Deaths
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards have been made under the Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979 in respect of children who have died following vaccination. [112624]

  Mr. Bayley
  The existing Vaccine Damage Payment scheme, which has been in place since 1979, provides a one-off payment to people severely disabled by vaccination against certain diseases. In three cases the vaccinated person had died by the time the payment was made, two children and one adult.

  Verification Framework
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local authorities(a) have the Verification Framework in place and fully operational, (b) are implementing it at present and (c) have accepted funding and intend to implement it. [113187]

  Angela Eagle
  At 3 March 2000, 140 local authorities had certified that, having received set-up funds from the Department, they are fully complying with all the requirements of the Department's Verification Framework. A further 102 local authorities have either already received funds or accepted the offer of funds to implement the Verification Framework fully and are at various stages of their implementation. 242 local authorities have accepted funds to implement the Verification Framework.

  Unclaimed Benefits
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of women over the age of 60 years who are not claiming the benefits to which they are entitled in the(a) constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East, (b) Teesside Region, (c) Northern Region and (d) United Kingdom. [113211]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. It is not possible to produce reliable estimates of numbers not claiming their entitlement at constituency, regional or sub-regional levels. There is no evidence that the pattern of Northern Region take-up of Income Support for women over 60 is above or below the national average; the scope for Regional estimates will be kept under review. Information on a national level is in the table.

  Estimates of single female pensioners not taking up their entitlement to benefit in 1997–98

  Thousand

  Benefit

  Females

  Income Support

  450,000

  Council Tax Benefit

  480,000

  Housing Benefit

  120,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

  2. The questions were interpreted as requesting information on single males and single females.

  3. Figures are based on data from the Family Resources Survey, 1997–98.

  4. Figures are subject to sampling error.
  514W
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of men over the age of 65 years who are not claiming the benefits to which they are entitled in the(a) constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East, (b) Teesside Region, (c) Northern Region and (d) United Kingdom. [113210]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. It is not possible to produce reliable estimates of numbers not claiming their entitlement at constituency, regional or sub-regional levels. The scope for Regional estimates will be kept under review. Information on a national level is in the table.

  Estimates of single male pensioners not taking up their entitlement to benefit in 1997–98

  Thousand

  Benefit

  Males

  Income Support

  100,000

  Council Tax Benefit

  130,000

  Housing Benefit

  40,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

  2. The question was interpreted as requesting information on single males.

  3. Figures are based on data from the Family Resources Survey, 1997–98.

  4. Figures are subject to sampling error.

  Benefits Agency Staff (Scotland)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the current staffing levels in local Benefits Agency offices in(a) Inverclyde and (b) Scotland. [111840]

  Angela Eagle
  As at 25 February, the number of staff employed in Inverclyde is 179, and as at 31 January the number for Scotland was 7,215.

  Pensioners (Benefit Take-up)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that all pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled. [111836]

  Mr. Rooker
  We will be announcing details of a national campaign, to encourage pensioners to claim their minimum income guarantee, shortly.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his estimates based on the Family Resources Survey 1996–97 of(a) median pensioner incomes, excluding means-tested benefits, by age, sex and marital status, consistent with his answer of 18 January 1999, Official Report, column 372W and (b) the size of each group. [113283]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the written answer I gave to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 8 February 2000,Official Report, columns 128–30W.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when action will be taken to ensure that all pensioners entitled to income support receive it; and what
  515W
  administrative obstacles exist to backdating the resulting awards of benefit to (a) April 1999 and (b) the date when eligibility commenced. [113128]

  Mr. Bayley
  An announcement of our plans to encourage pensioners to take-up their entitlement to the Minimum Income Guarantee will be made shortly.

  There are no administrative obstacles to backdating awards of benefit to April 1999. However, the prescribed time limit for claiming Income Support would prevent any claim made today being backdated to that date. That time limit, even with an extension for special circumstances, could result in payment for no more than three months prior to the date of claim.

  Anyone who claims Income Support can be considered for entitlement from the date of his or her claim. Generally this will be the first date that they contact the department to let the Secretary of State know of their intention to claim, provided that they then complete the appropriate claim form and provide the necessary evidence within one month of that first contact. If the customer is in receipt of Retirement Pension, Income Support will be paid on the same day as that Retirement Pension. In such circumstances entitlement to Income Support will begin on the first such payday, which may be later than the date of claim.

  Stakeholder Pension
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to consult insurance companies in establishing the stakeholder pension. [111845]

  Mr. Rooker
  Insurance companies have been actively involved in the extensive consultation undertaken for stakeholder pensions and will shortly be invited to comment on the draft regulations.

  Children in Poverty
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children were living in poverty in each of the past 10 years; and what estimate he has made of the number of children living in poverty over the next three years. [113205]

  Mr. Bayley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written Answer I gave him on 21 February 2000,Official Report, columns 790–91W.

TREASURY

  Gross Domestic Product Statistics
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish regional GDP statistics. [112364]

  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. Matthew Taylor, dated 6 March 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on plans to publish regional GDP statistics. I am replying in Dr Holt's absence.
  516W
  ONS last published GDP by Government Office Region (GOR), for years up to 1997, in an ONS News Release in January 19911. An article with additional tables and commentary was published in the March 1999 edition of Economic Trends2. Sub-regional estimates of GDP up to 1996 were last published in an ONS News Release in October 19983
  ONS plans to publish estimates of regional GDP up to 1998 and sub-regional GDP up to 1997 in the summer of 2000.
  1 ONS(99)36. Regional gross domestic product. 29 January 1999.
  2 J. S. Virdee. Regional Accounts 1997: Part 1. Economic Trends No. 544, March 1999.
  3 ONS(98)351. Local area gross domestic product. 22 October 1998.

  Licence Evasion
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of money the Exchequer loses annually through non-payment of(a) television licences, (b) car tax, (c) vehicle insurance and (d) MOT certificates. [111431]

  Mr. Timms
  It is estimated that around £183 million is lost annually to the Exchequer through non-payment of vehicle excise duty. The loss of revenue through non-payment of MOT test certificates is estimated to be around £870,000.

  To help tackle this evasion, DVLA continues to be proactive in improving enforcement regimes and last year recovered £80 million through penalties and fines.

  The non-payment of vehicle insurance represents costs to insurance companies. Figures are not available on the costs to the Exchequer, though these costs are likely to be negligible.

  The burden of any losses resulting from non payment of TV licence fees fall with the BBC.

  Pensions (Economic and Monetary Union)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress made since the 1999 British-Italian conference on considering the effect of EMU on pension provision. [112342]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  All Member States of the EU are involved in regular discussions on a range of issues, including pension provision. For example, the Cardiff peer review process ensures that each Member State is assessed on its progress on economic reform, including to pension systems, and a sub-group of the Economic Policy Committee is currently looking at the impact of ageing populations on the sustainability of Member States' public finances.

  Employment (EU Membership)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of jobs that are dependent on continued UK membership of the European Union. [112504]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is estimated that up to 3½ million jobs in the UK are linked, directly and indirectly, to the exports of goods and services to the European Union from the UK.

  Mortgage Lending
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements he has to review prudential upper limits on loan-to-value ratios by mortgage lenders; what are the rules of the Treasury in setting prudential limits; if he will obtain and publish copies of the rules of the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority relating to setting prudential limits; and when the prudential limits were last reviewed. [112516]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Financial Services Authority and the Building Societies Commission are the independent prudential supervisors of banks and building societies respectively. All their prudential notes are publicly available. In carrying out their responsibilities, the supervisors take a wide range of factors into account, which includes assessing lenders' exposure to mortgage risks, and undertake regular reviews of market practice. It is a requirement of authorisation that banks and building societies should run their operations prudently, and they should apply a minimum 50 per cent. risk weighting to assets fully secured on land.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will refer the commission and penalty charges levied by the Kensington Mortgage Company to the Financial Services Authority; [112774]

  (2) what steps he is taking to improve the transparency of the conditions offered by mortgage lenders to their customers; [112773]

  (3) if he will ask the Financial Services Authority to conduct an inquiry into the non-status mortgage lending sector; [112775]

  (4) what recent discussions he has had with the Financial Services Authority regarding the activities of non-status mortgage lenders. [112776]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I announced on 26 January that the Treasury would give the Financial Services Authority (FSA) responsibility for regulating most residential mortgages. All mortgage lenders, including those which specialise in the non-status market, will have to be authorised by the FSA, with specific permission to lend on mortgage. All mortgage lenders will have to satisfy the FSA that they are honest, competent, trustworthy and solvent, before permission can be given.

  Equivalised net disposable income

  £ per week

  Family type

  Two children aged 1 and 2

  Two children aged 3 and 5

  Dual earner couple—one working full-time1, one part-time

  201.14

  183.78

  Single earner couple—one working full-time1

  180.73

  165.13

  Single earner couple—one working part-time

  136.69

  124.89

  Lone parent—working full-time1

  260.83

  229.53

  Lone parent—working part-time

  197.27

  173.60

  1 full-time assumed to be at 35 hours per week

  Notes:

  1. Net disposable income is defined as earnings net of Income Tax and National Insurance and includes child benefit and entitlement to WFTC, it does not include entitlement to Housing and Council Tax Benefit.

  2. Income has been equivalised using the before housing costs McClements scale.
  518W
  The FSA will regulate mortgage advertising and require all mortgage lending activity to include specific disclosure of the main features of the loan.

  I also announced on 26 January that the Treasury would set new benchmark, CAT standard (cost, access, terms) mortgages for variable and fixed or capped interest rate mortgages. Although voluntary, these will provide a yardstick to help borrowers make better informed, confident mortgage choices and avoid products which have in some cases caused detriment in the past. It is expected that CAT standards will be finalised shortly, following discussions with the mortgage industry.

  The FSA will embark on a formal consultation process in the early summer and will consult on detailed rules for mortgage regulations towards the end of the year. Unauthorised mortgage providers will need to apply to the FSA by the middle of 2001, and the FSA expects to have the new regime in place by the third quarter of next year. The Treasury is in frequent contact with the FSA to discuss how these matters are progressing. However, it will be for the FSA to decide whether to initiate investigations into particular areas or firms in the mortgage market, once it has the powers to do so.

  In the meantime, all mortgage lenders in the non-status market have to comply with the guidelines issued by the Director General of Fair Trading in November 1997. These guidelines include the need for transparency in all dealings with potential and actual borrowers, and to ensure they do not engage in unfair business practices. Failure to comply with the guidelines could call into question a firm's fitness to hold a consumer credit licence.

  Disposable Incomes
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the equivalised net disposable incomes, using conventional assumptions of(a) a dual-earner couple with two children under 11, both earning the minimum wage, where one works full-time and the other 16 hours a week, (b) a single-earner couple with two children aged under 11 earning the national minimum wage where one works (i) full-time and (ii) 16 hours a week and (c) a single parent with two children aged under 11 earning the minimum wage and working (i) full-time and (ii) 16 hours a week. [112503]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is contained in the table:

  New Public Bodies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the new public bodies established by his Department since May 1997. [112671]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are committed to keeping the number of NDPBs to a minimum, and to ensuring that those which remain are open, accountable and effective.

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

  Since the 1999 edition was published, the Statistics Advisory Committee was disbanded on 4 May 1999. The Statistics Commission will come into being on 1 April 2000.

  The Policyholders Protection Board and the Financial Services Tribunal will be disbanded, subject to enactment of the Financial Services and Markets Bill now before Parliament. The Bill provides for the creation of a Financial Services and Markets Tribunal under the Lord Chancellor's Department, and a Financial Services and Markets Compensation Scheme.

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a rolling deadline for individuals for the submission of self-assessment tax forms. [112613]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no current plans to introduce a rolling deadline for self-assessment taxpayers.

  Local Taxation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for the last 20 years the total revenue yield from local domestic taxation(a) in cash terms and (b) as a share of national income distinguishing between those periods when the revenue base was (i) domestic rating, (ii) community charge and (iii) council tax. [112515]

  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 Kidgell to Dr Vincent Cable, dated 6 March 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on local domestic taxation. I am replying in Dr Holt's absence.
  Table A shows local government receipts (£ million) from domestic taxation. Since 1989 there have been regional differences in the types of local taxation, so the table shows a split of the receipts into domestic rates, community charge and council tax. Table B repeats this presentation, but shows receipts as a percentage of gross national income.
  520W

  TableA—Local government receipts from household taxation

  £ million

  Total

  Domestic rates NMHK

  Community charge NMHL

  Council tax NMHM

  1979

  2,809

  2,809

  —

  —

  1980

  3,551

  3,551

  —

  —

  1981

  4,314

  4,314

  —

  —

  1982

  5,083

  5,083

  —

  —

  1983

  4,962

  4,962

  —

  —

  1984

  5,212

  5,212

  —

  —

  1985

  5,705

  5,705

  —

  —

  1986

  6,521

  6,521

  —

  —

  1987

  7,214

  7,214

  —

  —

  1988

  8,384

  8,384

  —

  —

  1989

  9,433

  8,810

  623

  —

  1990

  11,276

  2,259

  9,017

  —

  1991

  8,545

  67

  8,478

  —

  1992

  8,276

  69

  8,207

  —

  1993

  8,169

  56

  2,122

  5,991

  1994

  8,508

  58

  —

  8,450

  1995

  9,209

  58

  —

  9,151

  1996

  9,923

  62

  —

  9,861

  1997

  10,751

  61

  —

  10,690

  1998

  11,667

  64

  —

  11,603

  Table B—Local government receipts from household taxation (as percentage of gross national income (ABMX))

  Total

  Domestic rates NMHK

  Community charge NMHL

  Council tax NMHM

  1979

  1.44

  1.44

  —

  —

  1980

  1.57

  1.57

  —

  —

  1981

  1.72

  1.72

  —

  —

  1982

  1.86

  1.86

  —

  —

  1983

  1.65

  1.65

  —

  —

  1984

  1.61

  1.61

  —

  —

  1985

  1.62

  1.62

  —

  —

  1986

  1.71

  1.71

  —

  —

  1987

  1.73

  1.73

  —

  —

  1988

  1.80

  1.80

  —

  —

  1989

  1.86

  1.74

  0.12

  —

  1990

  2.05

  0.41

  1.64

  —

  1991

  1.48

  0.01

  1.47

  —

  1992

  1.37

  0.01

  1.36

  —

  1993

  1.29

  0.01

  0.33

  0.94

  1994

  1.25

  0.01

  —

  1.24

  1995

  1.29

  0.01

  —

  1.28

  1996

  1.31

  0.01

  —

  1.30

  1997

  1.32

  0.01

  —

  1.32

  1998

  1.36

  0.01

  —

  1.35

  EU Fines
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total number of fines(a) owed and (b) paid under Article 228(2) by each EU member state; and how much debt in respect of such fines, broken down by country, has been written off. [112505]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  There have not yet been any fines imposed under Article 228(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, nor were there any fines imposed under ex Article 171.

  Drug Smuggling
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were charged with drug smuggling offences in the UK during 1999. [112804]

  Dawn Primarolo
  2,271 persons.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men and (b) women were (i) charged, (ii) convicted and (iii) imprisoned for drug smuggling offences in the UK during 1999. [113083]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In 1999, 1,813 men and 458 women were charged by Customs and Excise for drug smuggling offences. 1,072 people were convicted and 941 sentenced to imprisonment. A breakdown by gender of those convicted and sentence is not held centrally. The figures for convictions and sentences do not necessarily relate to the same cases as those for charges.

  Pay Awards
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to(a) compensate local authorities for national pay awards above inflation and (b) make an appropriate contribution to the block grant for (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales and (iii) Northern Ireland, to cover them. [112919]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In the Comprehensive Spending Review we provided support to local government which took account of pay pressures. Consequential amounts were allocated to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government have made it clear that all pay awards will need to be paid from within the spending limits set in the Comprehensive Spending Review. We do not expect to give additional support in the light of national pay awards.

  Insurance Records
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the numbers of people of working age with(a) no insurance records and (b) incomplete insurance records for each year of the past 30 years; and if he will express these data as a proportion of the working population. [112159]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 2 March 2000]: A full answer could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However the following information is available:

  The numbers of people with qualifying years for retirement pension in Great Britain for the 18 financial years between 1978–79 and 1995–96 can be found in table 5 of "Contributions and Qualifying Years for Retirement Pension 1995–96—Volume 2", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  The numbers of people of working age in Great Britain (women 16 to 59: men 16 to 64) are shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of people of working age

  1978

  32,322,300

  1979

  32,576,900

  2980

  32,740,300

  1981

  32,905,600

  1982

  33,055,200

  1983

  33,311,300

  522W

  Year

  Number of people of working age

  1984

  33,581,700

  1985

  33,770,100

  1986

  33,930,700

  1987

  34,106,100

  1988

  34,239,300

  1989

  34,359,800

  1990

  34,453,000

  1991

  34,524,700

  1992

  34,575,700

  1993

  34,621,200

  1994

  34,712,800

  1995

  34,863,500

  1996

  35,036,000

  Source:

  Population Estimates Unit, ONS

  The numbers of deficiency notices issued in respect of each financial year between 1990–91 and 1995–96 for Great Britain are shown in the table.

  Number of deficiency notices issued in respect of the tax year

  1990–91

  3,391,000

  1991–92

  3,422,000

  1992–93

  3,544,000

  1993–94

  3,747,000

  1994–95

  3,970,000

  1995–96

  4.360,000

  Source:

  National Insurance Contributions Office

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any small business will be exempt from delivering the working families tax credit through the pay packet. [112757]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 2 March 2000]: Paying WFTC through the pay packet is central to demonstrating the rewards of work and making work pay for families on low incomes. From April employees awarded tax credits will generally receive them with their pay except where they have opted for the credit to be paid to their spouse or partner or where their employer does not operate a PAYE scheme or only operates a simplified PAYE scheme for domestic staff. The Inland Revenue is providing an extensive range of direct practical help and support for employers who will be paying tax credits through the pay packet.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of recipients of the Working Families Tax Credit who currently receive payment at a post office who will from April 2000 receive payment through the wage packet. [112791]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 March 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on 9 February 2000, Official Report, column 214W.

  Households (Full-time Workers)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the last 30 years the numbers of households headed by a full-time worker(a) with children and (b) without children. [112163]
  523W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 2 March 2000]: 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 6 March 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the number of households headed by a full-time worker. I am replying in Dr Holt's absence.
  In August 1998 the ONS introduced Labour Force Survey (LFS) databases especially designed for analyses of labour market data on households. Estimates form the LFS using these databases giving the number of households headed by a full-time employee or self-employed person with children and without children are given in the attached table. However, the household datasets are only available for 1990 and from 1992 onwards.
  The analyses have been restricted to working-age households, which are defined as households including at least one person of working age, i.e. a man aged 16 to 64 and a woman aged 16 to 59.

  Working-age 1 households 2 with a head of household in full-time work3, by whether with dependent children 4 or not UK, spring quarters, 1990, and 1992 to 1999, not seasonally adjusted

  000s

  Spring

  Total

  With dependent children 5

  Without dependent children6

  1990

  12,088

  5,458

  6,630

  1992

  11,804

  5,140

  6,664

  1993

  11,728

  5,110

  6,618

  1994

  11,855

  5,108

  6,747

  1995

  12,057

  5,195

  6,862

  1996

  11,817

  5,143

  6,674

  1997

  11,858

  5,211

  6,647

  1998

  12,058

  5,247

  6,811

  1999

  12,122

  5,300

  6,822

  1 Working age households are defined as those having at least one person of working age, i.e. men aged 16 to 64 and women aged 16 to 59.

  2 Figures have not been adjusted to take account of heads of households with unknown economic activity.

  3 Employees and self-employed only.

  4 Dependent children are those aged 0 to 15, or those aged 16 to 18 and in full-time education.

  5 Totals include households with dependent and non-dependent children.

  6 Totals include households with non-dependent children.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey Household Datasets, ONS

  IR35
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals he calculates will be affected by the introduction of IR35. [112990]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 March 2000]: This information is provided in the Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill published in October 1999.

  Mortality Statistics
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the average death rates allowing for age and sex standardisation for(a) all causes, (b) coronary
  524W
  heart disease, (c) stroke and (d) cancer for each ward in Leeds, Central parliamentary constituency and for the City of Leeds as a whole. [112551]

  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. Hilary Benn, dated 6 March 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on death rates in Leeds. I am replying in Dr. Holt's absence.
  The attached table shows indirectly standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) for all causes of death, coronary heart disease, stroke and cancer, for each ward (as constituted at the time of the 1991 Census) that lies wholly in Leeds Central parliamentary constituency, in the years 1991–1993, based on populations from the 1991 Census. Comparable figures are also provided for Leeds metropolitan county district (based on 1991 boundaries).
  We have provided indirectly standardised ratios rather than European standardised rates as the latter do not incorporate sex standardisation and are likely to be less accurate for small numbers of deaths by cause in each ward.
  An SMR is defined as the ratio of the observed deaths in a given population over the expected deaths in that population if it experienced the age-specific death rates of a standard population (in this case the United Kingdom). The SMR for the UK is 100. Values greater than 100 indicate higher than average mortality and values lower than 100 indicate lower than average mortality.

  Standardised Mortality Ratios (SMRs) by ward and cause of death 1, 1991–1993 Wards in Leeds Central Parliamentary Constituency, and Leeds MCD

  Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR)

  Wardcode

  All-causes

  Coronary Heart Disease

  Stroke

  Cancer

  Wards in Leeds Central

  Beeston

  DAFD

  94

  105

  65

  100

  City and Holbeck

  DAFH

  116

  124

  91

  110

  Hunslet

  DAFQ

  118

  117

  126

  113

  Richmond Hill

  DAGB

  110

  126

  69

  119

  University

  DAGF

  125

  109

  123

  123

  Leeds metropolitan county

  district

  100

  103

  89

  103

  1 Cause of death is based on the underlying cause, using the following codes from the International Clasification of lDeseases, Ninth Revision

  Coronary Heart Disease: 410–414

  Stroke: 430–438

  Cancer: 140–208

  Emergency Vehicles (Fuel Tax)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the level of tax paid on fuel by the emergency services for running their vehicles. [113184]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no plans to review the level of tax paid on fuel by the emergency services for running their vehicles.

  Departmental Secondment
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff were seconded from the private sector to his Department in(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the companies from which staff have been seconded. [109291]
  525W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 9 February 2000]: During the respective periods, the number of staff seconded from the private sector were as follows:

  (a) 18

  (b) 20

  (c) 18.

  Regional Economic Conference
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry over the staging of a regional economic conference for the North. [112921]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 3 March 2000]: The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry discuss a wide range of issues on a regular basis.

  Cashpoint Machines
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers he has(a) to stop and (b) to regulate the application of charges for the use of ATM cash points in the LINK system. [113182]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 1 March 2000,Official Report, column 416W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).

  Mozambique
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent debt write-off arrangements have been agreed with the Government of Mozambique that cover payments to countries which are in receipt of IMF assistance. [112927]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As my hon. Friend will be aware, at the Chancellor's initiative, the UK will relieve 100 per cent. of Mozambique's outstanding bilateral official debt and will receive no further debt payments from that country.

  In July 1999, as part of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries debt initiative, bilateral official creditors in the Paris Club agreed to 90 per cent. debt reduction for Mozambique. Two of these creditors are in receipt of IMF assistance. The Government are not a party to the negotiations of other bilateral official creditors which have been encouraged to offer similar levels of debt reduction.

  International Monetary Fund
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the selection of a new managing director of the IMF; and if he will make a statement. [112828]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The usual informal consultations are now under way to appoint a new managing director of the IMF. We expect the Executive Board to reach a formal decision in due course.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what recent representations he has received regarding loans by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to the west/east joint venture company, KomiArcticOil; and if he will make a statement; [112427]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of lending by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to Russian oil companies and its compatibility with its rules on lending. [112426]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development seeks to engage in high quality projects with a strong transition impact. This approach is fully in line with the Bank's mandate and lending policies. All loans are subject to a rigorous review process within the Bank and must be approved by the Bank's Board of Directors, which represents 60 member nations and international organisations, including the UK.

  In terms of decisions relating to a change in ownership in a company in which the EBRD has an interest, the Bank reaches its decision based on commercial considerations with proper regard to the integrity and corporate governance standards of the purchaser.

CABINET OFFICE

  Information Technology
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to oversee the introduction of major Government IT projects into Government Departments. [112615]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Cabinet Office is leading a review of the Government's handling of IT projects to identify the pillars that support successful projects to make sure that these are in place from the start in the future.

  The first recommendations from this review were announced to the House on 21 February 2000, Official Report, columns 739–40W. These include ways to improve Ministers' awareness of their role in major IT projects and the establishment of a new system to share knowledge about IT projects across Government, so that all Departments have the benefit of the best practice available. These recommendations demonstrate that the Government are committed to taking action to improve performance in the introduction of major IT projects. Further measures to address other aspects of the handling of IT projects will be put forward in due course.

  Responsibility for the implementation of the recommendations will be shared between the Centre and Departments, although individual projects remain the responsibility of the Accounting Officer of the relevant Department.

  New Public Bodies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the new public bodies established by her Department since May 1997. [112673]
  527W
  Mr. Stringer
  The annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies" provides information on a range of public bodies. The 1997 edition lists those public bodies in existence prior to May 1997. The 1998 and 1999 editions lists public bodies in existence in subsequent years. Copies of these publications have been placed in the Library of the House. Copies are also available on the Cabinet Office website (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/quango).

  Departmental Staff (South-West)
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff are employed by each Government department and agency in(a) the South-West, (b) Devon and (c) Exeter. [113209]

  Mr. Stringer
  The number of staff employed in Government Departments and agencies in the South-West, Devon and Exeter is listed in the table. Figures are quoted on a Full-Time Equivalent basis.

  Permanent staff in post in the South-West region Industrial and non-industrial

  Department (including agencies)

  South-West

  Devon

  Exeter

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1,256

  374

  356

  Cabinet Office

  15

  0

  0

  Crown Prosecution Service

  338

  92

  61

  Customs and Excise

  954

  191

  51

  Culture, Media & Sport

  0

  0

  0

  Defence

  22,877

  2,660

  196

  Education and Employment

  2,247

  562

  75

  Environment, Transport and the Regions

  1,699

  144

  90

  Health and Safety Executive/Commission

  73

  16

  0

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  0

  0

  0

  Health

  138

  0

  0

  HM Land Registry

  1,528

  694

  0

  Home Office

  253

  10

  0

  HM Prison Service

  2,814

  925

  268

  Inland Revenue

  3,906

  821

  304

  International Development

  0

  0

  0

  Intervention Board

  0

  0

  0

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  358

  0

  0

  National Statistics

  0

  0

  0

  Ordnance Survey

  60

  15

  7

  Registers of Scotland

  0

  0

  0

  Scottish Office

  0

  0

  0

  Scottish Prison Service

  0

  0

  0

  Social Security

  5,018

  2,065

  269

  Trade and Industry

  235

  87

  35

  Treasury

  0

  0

  0

  Welsh Office

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Mint

  0

  0

  0

  Other Departments

  ACAS

  82

  0

  0

  Charity Commission

  161

  0

  0

  Central Office of Information

  15

  0

  0

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  9

  0

  0

  Offer

  9

  0

  0

  Ofsted

  26

  1

  1

  Ofwat

  9

  9

  9

  Privy Council Office

  4,692

  0

  0

  Treasury Solicitors

  76

  0

  0

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  New Public Bodies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the new public bodies established by her Department since May 1997. [112657]
  528W
  Clare Short
  My Department has established one new public body since May 1997. It is an Advisory Body called the Development Awareness Working Group.

  Women's Radio
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list radio projects funded by her Department which aim to disseminate information for women. [112830]

  Clare Short
  We actively support a range of radio projects that are specifically designed to disseminate development information to women, or which contain women focused information within a more general media for development initiative. Some current examples of such include:

  BBC World Service Great Lakes Lifeline Service—Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo—features programmes on women and a soap opera produced by Health Unlimited addressing women's health issues.

  Soul City Multimedia (TV, radio and press) project—South Africa/Southern Africa Region—support information on violence against women, rape and HIV/AIDS. Developed in conjunction with the strengthening of the National Network on Violence Against Women.

  Others include: Radio Gulu in Northern Uganda; Search for Common Ground radio soap opera in Angola; BBC Education Children in Conflict Radio Service; Project SPEAR emergency radio broadcasting for Macedonia, Albania and Kosovo; Farm Broadcast Unit in Bangladesh, BBC Radio Education for Afghan Children in Afghanistan.

  Storm Warnings (Indian Ocean)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports she has received on the operation of the early warning system for cyclones and tropical storms in the Indian Ocean area; and if she will make a statement. [112698]

  Clare Short
  The region is serviced by the French Government's Regional Forecasting Centre for Tropical Cyclones based on Reunion Island, east of Madagascar. We also receive regular bulletins on all potentially serious weather situations from the UK Meteorological Office. My officials in London and Mozambique use other monitoring resources available on the World Wide Web including the World Meteorological Organisation and the South African Weather Bureau.

  Disasters (Telephone Lines)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make it her policy to establish a single number disaster telephone line for public responses to events such as the floods in Southern Africa; and if she will make a statement. [112744]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 20 April 1999,Official Report, column 471W.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farm Bankruptcies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farming businesses have(a) closed and (b) gone bankrupt during each of the past five years. [110529]

  Ms Quin
  There are no statistics on farm business closures. The data requested on bankruptcies are set out in the table.

  Number of bankruptcies in the agricultural and horticultural sector: England and Wales 1994–99

  Date

  Bankruptcies of self-employed individuals

  Company 1 insolvencies

  Total

  1994

  231

  166

  397

  1995

  218

  99

  317

  1996

  168

  89

  257

  1997

  155

  51

  206

  1998

  157

  65

  222

  1999

  2149

  252

  2201

  1 Including partnerships

  2 Not including data for the fourth quarter

  Source:

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 189W, on live animal exports, how many live sheep were exported from the UK in 1999 for breeding. [110810]

  Ms Quin
  A total of 2,673 live sheep for breeding were exported from the UK in 1999 to EU member states and to Third Countries.

  These figures are derived from the computer system used to issue export health certificates and are subject to updating and amendment.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many live pigs were exported from the UK in 1999 for(a) slaughter, (b) further fattening and (c) breeding in 1999, broken down by each country of destination. [110811]

  Ms Quin
  The total number of live pigs exported from the UK during 1999 for(a) slaughter, (b) further fattening and (c) breeding are shown in the following tables:

  EU member states

  Pigs for slaughter

  Pigs for fattening

  Pigs for breeding

  Belgium

  —

  —

  12,922

  Denmark

  —

  —

  140

  France

  —

  —

  5,179

  Germany

  —

  —

  52,991

  Greece

  —

  —

  829

  Ireland

  83,537

  4,205

  109

  Italy

  260

  —

  6,000

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  24

  Netherlands

  —

  —

  19,180

  Portugal

  —

  —

  327

  Spain

  —

  50

  5,214

  Total

  83,797

  4,255

  102,915

  530W

  Non-EU destinations

  Pigs for slaughter

  Pigs for fattening

  Pigs for breeding

  Canada

  —

  —

  300

  Croatia

  —

  —

  190

  Czech Republic

  —

  —

  273

  India

  —

  —

  100

  Isle of Man

  —

  —

  2

  Japan

  —

  —

  846

  Kenya

  —

  —

  10

  Latvia

  —

  —

  139

  Mexico

  —

  —

  26

  Poland

  —

  —

  8

  Slovenia

  —

  —

  181

  South Korea

  —

  —

  525

  St. Helena

  —

  —

  20

  Switzerland

  —

  —

  6

  Thailand

  —

  —

  146

  China

  —

  —

  1,780

  U.S.A.

  —

  —

  120

  Total

  0

  0

  4,672

  These figures are derived from the computer system used to issue export health certificates and are subject to updating and amendment.

  Bees
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what scientific studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated regarding the import of bees from New Zealand; what assessment he has made of the probability of such an importation carrying Kashmir Bee virus into the United Kingdom; and what advice he has received concerning the role of varroa mites as vectors for KBV. [110125]

  Ms Quin
  The Central Science Laboratory's National Bee Unit was requested to undertake a formal qualitative risk analysis on the importation of package bees from New Zealand. This was completed in March 1999. The importation of queen bees from that country which has high bee health standards, has been allowed under licence since 1980 without problem. Germany also allows imports of bee packages from New Zealand. However, the risk of importing Kashmir Bee virus (KBV) cannot be ruled out and the virus may already be present in UK bees. It has not yet been proven that KBV is vectored by varroa. There is certainly no indication from those major honey-producing countries where both varroa and KBV are endemic that the virus is causing concern, or measurable damage, to industry.

  BSE (France)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the European Commission about the increased incidence of BSE and CJD in France. [109851]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 22 February 2000, Official Report, column 969W.

  Flood Defence
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers flood defence committees have in respect of the exercise by the Environment Agency of its permissive powers. [111586]

  Mr. Morley
  Section 106 of the Water Resources Act 1991 sets down the relationship between the Environment Agency and flood defence committees. Section 106(1) requires the Agency to arrange for its flood defence functions (except certain financial functions specified in section 106(2)) to be carried out by Regional Flood Defence Committees.

  In practice the committees will decide a forward programme of flood defence works based on Environment Agency proposals. The committees also provide the majority of funding for flood defence, through the levies on constituent councils.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Environment Agency has discretionary use of permissive powers under present legislation affecting the Environment Agency flood defence supervisory duty. [111585]

  Mr. Morley
  Flood and coastal defence legislation is permissive, empowering the Environment Agency (and the other operating authorities) to carry out works but not requiring them to undertake such works, either at all or to a given standard. The Government nevertheless expect operating authorities to exercise their powers, and respond to flood risks, in a responsible way, and to be ready to explain their policy in this regard.

  We have provided operating authorities with guidance to allow them to take prioritised decisions on flood defence provision within a strategic framework. This has been further developed through the Government's High Level Targets for flood and coastal defence, published in November 1999, which include a requirement for all operating authorities to prepare a publicly available policy statement setting out their approach to flood and coastal defence.

  The Environment Agency has a duty, under section 6(4) of the Environment Act 1995, to exercise a general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence in England and Wales. The way in which this duty will be exercised acknowledging other operating authorities' responsibilities was elaborated, alongside the High Level Targets, in November 1999.

  Farm Subsidies (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many farmers in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire received subsidy payments in each £10,000 band in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement; [111410]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of the subsidy payments to farmers in (a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire for each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [111441]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Glufosinate Ammonia
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000,Official Report, column 289W, if the use of glufosinate ammonia and its effects on the environment is being monitored as part of the trials being undertaken on GM winter oil seed rape. [111364]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: Yes.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps would have to be taken to lift the prohibition on winter use of glufosinate ammonia; and in what circumstances the lifting of the ban would be considered. [111354]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: The prohibition is contained in the five approvals for the commercial use of glufosinate ammonium products on oil seed rape. Lifting the prohibition would only be considered if an application, accompanied by information to demonstrate that this particular use posed no unacceptable risk to people, wildlife or the wider environment, were received. Experimental approvals, allowing strictly limited use but no sales, may be granted in order for experimental information to be collected to support such an application.

  Agriculture (Somerset)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people were employed in agriculture in Somerset in each year from 1984–85 to 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111963]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: People employed on main agricultural holdings in Somerset for the years 1984–85 to 1999–2000 are as follows:

  Employees

  Total labour

  1984

  7,081

  15,373

  1985

  7,187

  15,436

  1986

  6,924

  15,241

  1987

  6,808

  15,229

  1988

  6,970

  15,398

  1989

  6,579

  15,056

  1990

  6,604

  14,863

  1991

  6,501

  14,605

  1992

  6,385

  14,503

  1993

  6,491

  14,611

  1994

  5,984

  14,282

  1995

  5,879

  13,866

  1996

  5,696

  13,715

  1997

  5,724

  13,695

  1998

  5,764

  13,841

  1999

  5,277

  13,197

  Notes:

  1. Employees consists of salaried managers, regular workers and seasonal/casual workers.

  2. Total labour consists of employees and principal farmers, spouses, other farmers, partners and directors.

  3. In 1998, fundamental changes were introduced to the labour questions on the June Agricultural and Horticultural Census in England, Wales and Scotland. It appears that this change in questions may have led to the recording of additional Labour who were not previously included in the returns. The change in questions has also led to a redistribution of labour between the various categories, most notably for salaried managers.

  4. We therefore advise caution when comparing the 1998 results with previous years.

  Source:

  Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  Milk
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his latest estimates for the price paid to farmers, in(a) pence and (b) euros per litre for milk in (i) the UK and (ii) in each of the EU member states which has a milk sector. [111788]

  Ms Quin
  1998 is the latest year for which farm-gate milk prices are available for all member states. The table shows the annual average price paid to farmers in 1998 for milk in each EU member state for raw milk, based on a milk fat content of 3.7 per cent. to ensure comparability. 1997 prices have been shown for comparison.

  Average price paid to farmers for raw milk, 3.7 per cent. fat content

  £ per 100kg

  Euros per 100kg

  Member state

  1997

  1998

  1997

  1998

  Austria

  18.63

  18.60

  26.91

  27.50

  Belgium

  18.35

  18.25

  26.50

  26.98

  Denmark

  21.37

  20.83

  30.87

  30.80

  Finland

  22.11

  20.99

  31.94

  31.03

  France

  19.47

  19.31

  28.13

  28.55

  Germany

  19.52

  19.96

  28.19

  29.51

  Greece

  23.32

  22.13

  33.69

  32.72

  Ireland

  19.54

  18.89

  28.23

  27.92

  Italy

  25.78

  23.57

  37.24

  34.84

  Luxembourg

  19.86

  20.16

  28.69

  29.81

  Netherlands

  20.19

  29.69

  29.17

  30.59

  Portugal

  19.87

  19.20

  28.70

  28.39

  Spain

  18.76

  18.93

  27.10

  27.99

  Sweden

  23.50

  22.15

  33.94

  32.75

  United Kingdom

  20.67

  18.10

  29.85

  26.75

  Notes:

  1. Prices are reported to Eurostat by member state in national currency per 100kg

  2. Conversion factors to litres are not available for each member state. In the UK 1 litre is approximately equal to 1.03kg of milk

  Source:

  Eurostat

  Feeding Stuffs Regulations
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what recent representations he has received concerning the impact of proposed Regulation 13 of the Draft Feeding Stuffs Regulations 2000 on animal husbandry in the hill and upland areas of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement; [112066]

  (2) if he will amend Regulation 13 of the Draft Feeding Stuffs Regulation 2000 to allow the continued use for animal husbandry in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland of cobalt, selenium, copper and other trace minerals. [112065]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: My Department has received a large number of representations concerned with the effect of the proposed regulation including on hill and upland areas of the United Kingdom.

  Our recent consultation on the draft Feeding Stuffs Regulations 2000 specifically requested comments on this regulation. This was in order that all the implications of such a measure on additives in animal husbandry used outside feeds could be assessed. We will be in a position to make a decision on this issue shortly, when we have considered all the responses.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much agrimonetary compensation has been received by British farmers in the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [111783]

  Ms Quin
  The approximate figures are set out for the following CAP scheme years.

  £ million

  Scheme Year

  1997

  85

  1998

  48

  1999

  264

  Because payments relate to scheme years, some of the expenditure falls between calendar years.

  Fish Discards
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the research study on discards commissioned from Nautilus Consultants will be completed. [112345]

  Mr. Morley
  The study commenced in June 1999 and will take 18 months to complete. The final report is expected in December this year.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many times he has raised the issue of BSE-related costs to the pig industry with the Agriculture Commissioner in Brussels in the last 12 months; [111704]

  (2) when he last raised the issue of BSE-related costs to the pig industry with the Farm Commissioner in Brussels. [111705]

  Ms Quin
  Ministers and officials have had a number of discussions with the European Commission in the last 12 months on the current difficulties being faced by UK pig producers. My right hon. Friend's most recent discussions with Agriculture Commissioner Fischler were in the margins of the Agriculture Council on Monday 24 January and at the National Farmers Union Annual General Meeting on 1 February.

  Greyhounds
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent research his Department has conducted into the welfare standards for racing greyhounds raised in the UK in Vietnam; and if he will make a statement. [112389]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: No such studies have been undertaken by this Department. We have no powers in relation to the matter raised.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the members of SEAC, indicating which(a) are and (b) have been involved in the production of vaccines, and listing their declared commercial interests. [111899]

  SEAC member

  Name of organisation

  Nature of interests

  Commercial interests

  Professor A. Aguzzi

  Boehringer Ingelheim

  Occasional consultancy

  Abbott Laboratories (Chicago)

  Support of some laboratory costs e.g. care of mice, instrumentation

  Immune AG (Vienna)

  Support of some laboratory costs e.g. care of mice, instrumentation

  Professor R. Anderson

  Decode

  Scientific Advisory Board

  SKB

  Scientific consultancy

  Abbott Pharmaceuticals

  Scientific consultancy

  IBHSC Ltd.

  Director

  M. R. Bradley

  European Natural Sausage Casings Association

  Adviser

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Adviser

  Professor C. Bostock

  Safeway

  Share holding

  Professor J. Collinge

  None

  None

  Dr. J. Ironside

  —

  —

  Professor H. Kimbell

  Bass Plc.

  Small share holding

  Tesco's Plc.

  Small share holding

  Professor C. Masters

  Merck

  Consultant

  PRANA Biotechnology Plc.

  Director

  Professor I. McConnell

  Marks and Spencer

  Veterinary consultant on occasional basis

  Dr. M. Painter

  None

  None

  Dr. D. B. Pepper

  The Veterinary Defence Society Ltd.

  Director and Claims consultant

  Pfizer Animal Health (Pfizer Ltd.)

  Adviser

  Intervet International BV (Netherlands)

  Adviser

  Intervet UK Ltd.

  Adviser

  Dr. J. Safar

  Dr. Safar has no commercial interests but according to the intellectual property policies of the University of California (UC) is entitled to a portion of income when UC licences to a commercial entity any patents on which he is named as an inventor

  Professor P. Smith (Acting Chairman)

  None

  None

  Dr. D. B. Pepper

  The Veterinary Defence Society Ltd.

  Director and Claims consultant

  Pfizer Animal Health (Pfizer Ltd.)

  Adviser

  Intervet International BV (Netherlands)

  Adviser

  Intervet UK Ltd.

  Adviser

  Dr. J. Safar

  —

  —

  Professor P. Smith (Acting Chairman)

  None

  None

  Non-commercial interests

  Professor A. Aguzzi

  Swiss National Foundation No: 31–36059.92 3100–040827.94

  Principal investigator

  Cancer league of the Kanton Zurich

  Principal investigator

  European Union No. BMHI-CT93-1142

  Co-investigator

  National Institute of Health

  Co-investigator

  Swiss National Research Program NFP38 and NFP38+

  Principle investigator

  Professor. R. Anderson

  The Wellcome Trust

  Governor

  Tropical Health and Education Trust (THET)

  Trustee

  London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

  Court of Governors

  Hamburg Institute of Tropical Medicine

  Scientific Advisory Board

  Isaac Newton Institute, Cambridge

  Scientific Advisory Board

  Maxwell Institute, Edinburgh

  Scientific Advisory Board

  Mr. R. Bradley

  MAFF

  Adviser

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  Adviser

  World Health Organisation

  Adviser

  Office International des Epizooties

  Adviser

  European Commission

  Adviser

  National Governments and individuals; especially in Africa, Europe and Americas

  Adviser

  536W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: In accordance with the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's code of practice, members are asked to declare any commercial and non-commercial interests. The table lists the members of SEAC and their currently declared interests. This information is also published in the Committee's Annual Report.

  537W

  SEAC member

  Name of organization

  Nature of interests

  International Natural Sausage Casings

  Adviser

  Association (INSCA)

  North American Natural Casing Association (NANCA)

  Natural Sausage Casings Association (NSCA)

  Hard Brothers Ltd.

  Adviser

  Animal Proteins Corporation (APC) Europe SA

  Adviser

  Crackwillow Ltd.

  Adviser

  Professor C. Bostock

  The UK and some overseas Governments

  Research contracts with IAH

  Non-governmental organisations and companies, spanning a wide range of interests including food, agriculture, chemicals and pharmaceuticals.

  Research contracts with IAH

  Further details of customers of IAH can be found on the Institute's website (www.iah.bbsrc.ac.uk)

  Professor J. Collinge

  Wellcome Trust

  Research grant holder

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  Research grant holder

  Department of Health

  Research grant holder

  European Commission BIOMED programme

  Research grant holder

  Medical Research Council

  Research grant holder

  Motor Neurone Disease Association

  Chairman, Research Advisory Panel

  World Health Organisation

  Adviser

  Dr. J. Ironside

  Baxter Healthcare USA

  Research investigator on a Baxter funded project on the transmission of CJD (principal investigator Dr. Paul Brown USA)

  Department of Health

  Research grant holder:

  Surveillance of CJD (neuropathology)

  DoH 1216469—National retrospective review of CJD and respective disorders

  DoH 1216982—Immunocytochemical testing for disease-associated prion protein in lymphoid tissues

  Adviser: Decontamination of surgical instruments

  Assessment of risk of exposure to vCJD: infectivity in blood and blood products

  Medical Research Council

  Grant holder:

  G9708080—Edinburgh HIV brain and tissue resource

  G9627376—Phenotypic variation in CJD, a clinical pathological and molecular study

  BBSRC

  Grant holder:

  15/BS204814—Neuronal pathology in CJD: an immunocytochemical study with quantitive and microscopic analysis

  201/BS410537—The relationship between neuron damage and clinical disease: relating murine and ovine scrapie to BSE and CJD Adviser: BSEP

  European Union

  Grant holder:

  EC BI04–98–6046—Diagnosis of TSE using PrPsc/PrPc

  EC CT98-6015—European centralised facility for human transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (prion disease)

  EC PL97-6003—Transgenic mice expressing human prion protein. Use for characterisation of human encephalopathies and sensitivity for detection of infectivity

  EU CT98-6048—Quantitative analysis of MR scans in CJD (QAMRIC)

  Adviser

  Committee on safety of medicines

  Adviser

  World Health Organisation

  Adviser

  UK Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Body

  Adviser

  Professor H. Kimbell

  —

  —

  Professor C. Masters

  National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Several research grants

  Principle and Associate investigator

  World Health Organisation

  Occasional consultancies on CJD

  Australian Government

  Occasional consultancy on CJD and Director of the National CJD Registry

  Professor I. McConnell

  Wellcome Trust

  Fellowship holder

  Research grant holder

  Panel member for Veterinary Interest Group

  BBSRC

  Research grant holder

  Dr. M. Painter

  None

  None

  Dr. D. B. Pepper

  None

  None

  538W

  539W

  SEAC member

  Name of organization

  Nature of interests

  Dr. J. Safar

  National Institute of Health, Grant # AGO-10770

  Co-investigator

  World Health Organisation

  Adviser

  Swiss National Research Programme

  Adviser

  Medical Research Council

  Adviser

  Non-governmental organisations and companies

  Research contracts with UCSF

  Professor P. Smith (Acting Chairman)

  Department of Health

  Grant holder

  Dr. D. B. Pepper

  None

  None

  Dr. J. Safar

  —

  —

  Professor P. Smith (Acting Chairman)

  Department of Health

  Grant holder

  Correspondence
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Banbury dated 23 December concerning Mr. C. Lane of Village Farm, Bletchingdon. [112654]

  Ms Quin
  I replied to the letter from the hon. Member for Banbury on 2 March 2000.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Christopher Snelling
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds he authorised the early release of Christopher Snelling, the murderer of Police Sergeant Robertson; and if he will make a statement. [111786]

  Mr. Boateng
  Christopher Snelling was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for conspiracy to rob and the manslaughter of Police Sergeant Robertson. No decision as to his release has yet been taken.

  His application for release on parole is currently being considered by the Parole Board, pursuant to the authority delegated to it under the Parole Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 1998. I have asked the Chairman of the Parole Board to write to the hon. Member directly once the Board has concluded its deliberations, setting out its decision.

  When considering a case such as Mr. Snelling's, the Parole Board takes into account Directions as to the release of determinate sentence prisoners given by the Secretary of State, under section 32(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. These focus primarily on the risk to the public of a further offence being committed at a time when the offender would otherwise be in prison. This is balanced against the benefit, both to the public and the offender, of early release back into the community under a degree of supervision which might help rehabilitation and so lessen the risk of reoffending in the future.

  European Public Prosecutor
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which EU member states currently support the establishment of a European public prosecutor; and what is the position of the Commission on this matter. [112339]
  540W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In its Opinion for this year's Intergovernmental Conference, the Commission proposes the creation of a European Public Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute before national courts cases of fraud against the European Community's budget. I have made clear that I am not persuaded of the case for a European prosecutor and see a number of significant difficulties in such a proposal. To date, I am not aware that other member states have publicly declared positions.

  Europol
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost in the next financial year of the increase in remuneration, pensions and other financial entitlements to Europol employees of December 1999. [112509]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Total personnel costs, including salaries, pensions and other staff allowances, in the Europol budget for 2000 is 17,261,000 euro in respect of 185 posts. These figures compare with a personnel budget for 1999 of 11,130,500 euro for 139 staff. A copy of Europol's draft budget for 2000 (reference 2210–87r6) giving a detailed breakdown of costs was deposited with the Parliamentary scrutiny committees on 20 September 1999.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers his Department(a) has and (b) will have after 1 April compulsorily to acquire local government properties used to house asylum seekers, (i) if it needs further such accommodation for such purposes and (ii) if it needs such accommodation on a longer basis than the local authority plans to use it for such purposes. [112477]

  Mrs. Roche
  Section 101 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (which comes into force on 3 April) provides that the Secretary of State may by order designate areas in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland as reception zones. The Secretary of State may direct a local authority of the Northern Ireland Executive to make available any suitable housing accommodation within such a zone for the purpose of providing support to asylum seekers under section 95 of the 1999 Act. The period for which such accommodation is to be made available cannot exceed five years.
  541W
  In relation to Scotland, the Secretary of State may not direct a local authority to provide accommodation unless Scottish ministers have confirmed that the criteria specified in a designation order are in their opinion met in relation to that authority.

  Housing accommodation will be suitable for the purposes of the provisions of section 101 if it is unoccupied, likely to remain unoccupied for the foreseeable future if not made available, and appropriate for the accommodation of asylum seekers.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list those local authorities which are currently supporting asylum seekers who are unaccompanied minors, indicating how many such people are being supported by each such local authority; [113318]

  (2) if he will list those local authorities which are currently supporting asylum seekers, indicating how many asylum seekers are being supported by each such local authority. [113316]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information on local authority-supported asylum seekers is available only for the Greater London local authorities. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) on 9 February 2000,Official Report, columns 166–67W, which gives the available information, as at 7 January 2000, on asylum seekers supported by each London borough, split between families, singles and unaccompanied minors.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what changes he has made since 2 May 1997 to the list of countries where, in terms of section 1 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, there is in general no serious risk of persecution; [113322]

  (2) which countries are designated by him under section 1 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 as ones where there is in general no serious risk of persecution; what plans he has to amend that list; and if he will make a statement. [113321]

  Mrs. Roche
  The countries designated as ones where there is in general no serious risk of persecution are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, India, Pakistan, Poland and Romania. No changes have been made to this list since 2 May 1997.

  When Part IV and Schedule 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 are brought into force later this year, the list of designated countries will cease to operate. Cases from these countries will then be dealt with, where appropriate, using the fairer and more effective case-specific procedures in the 1999 Act for dealing quickly with unfounded claims.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason payments to Scottish local authorities for supporting asylum seekers differ from such payments to English and Welsh local authorities. [113319]

  Mrs. Roche
  In England and Wales, local authorities may recover costs associated with supporting asylum seekers subject to unit cost limits of £140 a week for single adults and £240 a week for families. These unit costs have been agreed with the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government.
  542W
  In Scotland, asylum seeking adults are supported under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and families and children under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The Home Office and the Scotland Office agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, for the 1999–2000 financial year, to continue previous arrangements under which a flat rate grant of £165 per person is paid for support of asylum seeking adults and families. In future, there will be United Kingdom arrangements for asylum support under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his Department's investigation into allegations of the misuse of public money to house asylum seekers in Northamptonshire. [113355]

  Mrs. Roche
  I understand that Northamptonshire County Council is currently conducting an investigation into these allegations to determine whether there are matters that should be referred to the police for possible criminal investigation. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations which have agreed with his Department to provide first contact support for asylum seekers on or after 1 April. [113314]

  Mrs. Roche
  The following organisations have agreed to provide staff to act as reception assistants to help deal with persons seeking support under the national asylum support scheme. Refugee Arrivals Project; Migrant helpline; Refugee Council; Scottish Refugee Council; Welsh Refugee Council; and Refugee Action.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to apply the new support scheme under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to all asylum seekers whose applications are made on or after 1 April; and if he will make a statement. [113320]

  Mrs. Roche
  I propose to bring in the new support arrangements on Monday 3 April 2000 for asylum seekers who make their applications at a port of entry from that date. The entitlement of new port applicants to cash, social security and housing benefits will thereupon cease; in-country applicants do not have this entitlement.

  Those who apply for asylum from that date and who are then detained at Oakington reception centre, whether their application is port or in-country, will go on to the new support arrangements.

  I shall also make arrangements for asylum seekers who claim asylum and support from 3 April in Scotland or Northern Ireland and who are eligible for support to come on to the new support arrangements.

  It is my intention to bring the new support arrangements on stream as soon as possible for other asylum seekers who make in-country applications for asylum in England and Wales and for those in England and Wales who claim asylum at their port of entry prior to 3 April 2000 who receive a negative decision and who then go on to appeal. Until then, responsibility for providing support will continue under the terms of Schedule 9 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
  543W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy in publishing asylum statistics to differentiate between claimants from different parts of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement. [113317]

  Mrs. Roche
  Asylum statistics are recorded on a nationality basis and Serbs, Kosovans and Montenegrins are nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. To attempt to provide statistics on a regional basis would incur a great deal of effort and disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations which have agreed with his Department to provide accommodation for asylum seekers on or after 1 April under the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, indicating how many asylum seekers each contractor has agreed to accommodate. [113315]

  Proven adjusications on assaults in prisons in England and Wales, 19991

  Number/per 100 population

  Assaults on staff

  Assaults on prisoners

  Assaults on others

  All assaults

  Number

  All establishments

  2,556

  3,344

  418

  6,318

  of which:

  PFI establishments2

  71

  99

  10

  180

  Other private sector establishments3

  111

  246

  28

  385

  Public sector establishments

  2,374

  2,999

  380

  5,753

  Number per 100 population

  All establishments

  3.9

  5.1

  0.6

  9.7

  of which:

  PFI establishments2

  3.2

  4.4

  0.4

  8.0

  Other private sector establishments3

  4.1

  9.2

  1.0

  14.4

  Public sector establishments

  4.0

  5.0

  0.6

  9.6

  1 Provisional

  2 Private Finance Initiative establishments: Altcourse, Ashfield, Lowdham Grange and Pare

  3 Other privately managed establishments: Blakenhurst, Buckley Hall, Doncaster and The Wolds

  Prisoner Welfare
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the welfare of prisoners who are held in(a) PFI-prisons and (b) nonPFI-prisons; and if he will make a statement. [112476]

  Mr. Boateng
  The welfare of all prisoners, including those housed in the five Private Finance Initiative Design, Construct, Manage and Finance (DCMF) prisons now open, is assessed according to the same procedures and standards. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons conducted 21 full inspections in 1999 including three DCMF prisons, Parc, Altcourse and Lowdham Grange. Conditions for prisoners in directly managed prisons were reported to range from the unacceptable to the excellent. In his report on Parc, the Chief Inspector stated that Parc was a challenging place and that there was still much to do but that he was impressed with the potential and the obvious willingness of most staff to make the prison successful. The reports on Altcourse and Lowdham Grange prisons have not yet been published.

  The Prison Service itself continuously monitors the performance of all prisons including the treatment of inmates through various procedures such as Key Performance Indicators and standards audits.
  544W
  Mrs. Roche
  All information about the organisations that have tendered to provide accommodation for asylum seekers under the national asylum support scheme and about the details of their bids is commercially confidential. I am, therefore, unable to provide the information requested.

  Prison Staff (Assaults)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults on prison staff were carried out in the latest year for which figures are available by prisoners in(a) PFI prisons and (b) non-PFI prisons; and if he will make a statement. [112497]

  Mr. Boateng
  Provisional information on the number of proven assaults adjudicated upon in prisons in England and Wales during 1999 is given in the table.

  Immigration and Asylum (Computer Systems)
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the functioning of his Department's computer systems relating to control of immigration and asylum. [112479]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Home Office relies on a number of computer systems in the control of immigration and asylum. All systems are functioning effectively under appropriate management arrangements and contracts with suppliers to provide for day to day operation and development where required.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his plans to monitor the use of mobile telephones for criminal purposes. [112501]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill was introduced to the House on 9 February. The Bill will ensure that the current regime for intercepting the communications of those involved in serious crime is updated, to deal with the technological changes which have taken place since the Interception of Communications Act was enacted in 1985. The strict criteria for the approval of interceptions will remain the same.

  Schengen Convention
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the general principles governing the payment of informers as part of the Schengen process; and what guidelines have subsequently been passed to UK agencies. [112507]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The United Kingdom's application to participate in those parts of the Schengen acquis relating to police and judicial co-operation included a list of relevant Decisions of the Schengen Executive Committee. These include one relating to the payment of informers (SCH/Com-ex(99)8 rev 2). As the United Kingdom's application has yet to be approved, no action has yet been taken in relation to this Decision.

  The United Kingdom's application has been subject to the Parliamentary scrutiny process. Accordingly those Decisions of the Schengen Executive Committee in which the United Kingdom is seeking to participate have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those items of information to be shared by the UK on accession to elements of the Schengen system. [112512]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The United Kingdom is seeking to participate in the exchange of data under Article 95 and Articles 97 to 100 of the Schengen Convention. These Articles broadly cover areas of police and judicial co-operation. A copy of the Schengen Convention may be found in the Library.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place the Schengen Manual on Bogus Drug Deals in the Library. [112506]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am unaware of any such Manual. If the hon. Member were able to provide more details we would be happy to explore the matter further.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on 1 February. [112620]

  Mrs. Roche
  The current publicity surrounding the rise in asylum seekers and the backlogs of work in Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) has provided a flurry of Parliamentary Questions relating to the number of staff employed in IND at various times.

  There is no particular significance to the date of 1 February 2000.

  Immigration Documents
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to immigration officers at ports regarding the issue of SAL1 and SAL2 documents; and if he will place a copy of the guidance in the Library. [112707]

  Mrs. Roche
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has issued no guidance on these matters to Immigration Officers. These are administrative procedures covered by internal operational instructions.

  Safe Cells
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many safe cells there are in(a) prisons and (b) police stations; what plans he has for further ones to be installed; and if he will make a statement. [112975]

  Mr. Boateng
  By 31 March 2000, 185 improved standard cells (previously known as "safe" cells) will have been provided in 19 existing prisons. In addition, there are 1,088 cells in use at two new privately managed prisons (Forest Bank prison and Ashfield young offenders institution) which reflect the new design requirements. All future new prisons will similarly incorporate these requirements. No central record exists of the number of such cells in police stations in England and Wales and the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the same safe cell specification applies to(a) prisons in HM Prison Service, (b) privately-run prisons and (c) prisons funded by the Private Finance Initiative; and if he will make a statement. [112976]

  Mr. Boateng
  Private sector consortiums seeking to build and manage new prisons are required to reflect the design requirements of the Prison Service's improved standard cell in all new prison cells. While such cells may not be identical to those built by the Prison Service, all cells will incorporate the key elements of the Service's design specification.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners committed suicide in safe cells in the last year for which figures are available. [112974]

  Mr. Boateng
  None of the prisoners who committed suicide in 1999 were located in the improved cell design, formerly known as "safe" cells.

  Prisoner Complaints
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints of racist behaviour were made by prisoners against prison officers in 1997, 1998 and 1999. [113012]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of alleged racist incidents recorded by establishments against staff on prisoners for the past three years are:

  112 (1996–97)

  92 (1997–98

  218 (1998–99).

  An incident may have been reported by the prisoner or by anyone else witnessing it.

  All incidents which are alleged to have a racist element are required to be reported to the race relations liaison officer (RRLO) for recording and investigation. The majority of alleged racist incidents are resolved informally. Race relations and the role of the RRLO were given added prominence following the setting up of the Director General's Race Relations Group in July 1998 and further guidance on the definition of a racist incident has been issued since the publication of the Macpherson report in February 1999.

  Race Relations Training
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what anti-racist training has been provided to the dedicated search team at HMP Full Sutton. [113009]

  Mr. Boateng
  All dedicated search team staff at Full Sutton receive training on race relations. In addition, the dedicated search team also receives training on equal opportunities and anti-bullying, both of which incorporate an element of race relations.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what anti-racist training is provided to Prison Service staff. [113013]

  Mr. Boateng
  All Prison Service staff are trained nationally, by the Prison Service's training services, and locally by each race relations trainer who must have attended the national race relations training for trainers course. All race relations training, and associated procedures, are auditable by the national standards unit and are underpinned by the Prison Service Order on Race Relations (PSO 2800), issued in May 1997, a copy of which is available in the Library. Topics covered in the training include:

  Acceptable/unacceptable terminology; prejudice, discrimination and related processes;

  the definition and investigation of complaints and racist incidents;

  the significance of religious artefacts/objects; and

  the importance of the individual in the elimination of discrimination and the promotion of equality.

  Prisoner Telephone Call Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidelines are provided to prison officers on the recording of monitored telephone conversations of prisoners; [113011]

  (2) what monitoring is undertaken by the Prison Service of prison telephone monitoring indexes; [113010]

  (3) what guidelines have been established by the Prison Service for the monitoring of prisoners' telephone calls. [113008]

  Mr. Boateng
  Guidelines to prison staff on the recording and monitoring of prisoners' telephone calls are contained in the Prison Service Security Manual, Prison Standing Order 5G, Circular Instruction 21–1992, Chapters 1 and 2 of Prison Service Order 4400 and Instructions to Governors 87–1995 and 73–1995, copies of which are available in the Library.

  These require that all prisoners' telephone calls, other than in open establishments, are recorded and capable of being monitored contemporaneously and from playback of the recordings. Calls made by high and exceptional risk category A prisoners are contemporaneously monitored. Monitoring of other prisoners' calls takes place on a selective basis where there is justifiable suspicion of
  548W
  abuse, supplemented by random monitoring to the extent it is considered necessary for the purposes of security, control and the detection of crime.

  Prisons (Rats)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure in each of the past three financial years on controlling and treating rat infestations in prisons. [113043]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not available.

  Regular inspections take place in all prison establishments to check for infestations of pests of all types, and establishments have contracts with pest control firms for action to be taken to deal with any infestations discovered.

  Primates
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what primates were brought into this country through Dover on 3 February having sailed on the 'Cap Afrique' from Dunkirk; what was their(a) origin and (b) destination; and what arrangements were made for their welfare during their journey. [110231]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  According to our records, 60 primates from Mauriti us came into Dover on 3 February. These were inspected by a veterinary surgeon at the quarantine premises which was their destination and were found to have travelled well with no signs of ill health or disease. According to Home Office records the ship on which they arrived was the 'Cap Afrique.'

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the terms of reference for the review which he has asked Gurbux Singh to conduct on the Global Cultural Diversity Congress. [113586]

  Mr. Straw
  I have asked Gurbux Singh to conduct a review with the following terms of reference:To review the events leading up to the cancellation of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, including possible implications for corporate governance of the Commission for Racial Equality, and to make recommendations.
  The findings of the review will be laid in the Library.

  Police Investigations (War Crimes and Torture)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many investigations have been undertaken to date by the Metropolitan police under the provisions of the(a) War Crimes Act 1991 and (b) International Convention on Torture. [112923]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan police has informed me that, between May 1991 and 2 March 2000, 381 individuals have been investigated under the War Crimes Act 1991. He also informs me that two allegations under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (the offence of Torture) have been investigated.
  549W
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Metropolitan police officers are assigned to the investigation of cases referred to the Metropolitan police under(a) the War Crimes Act 1991 and (b) the International Convention on Torture; and if he will make a statement. [1 I 2926]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan police has informed me that no officers are currently assigned to the investigation of cases under the War Crimes Act 1991.

  He also informs me that no officers are assigned specifically to the investigation of allegations of torture. Officers are assigned, principally from the Organised Crime Group, as and when allegations are made.

  1996

  Total police vehicle accidents

  No limmediate response/pursuit

  Immediate/pursuit

  Fatal RTAs immediate/pursuits

  Police serious injury immediate/pursuits

  Police other injuries immediate/pursuits

  Civilian fatal PVAs immediate/pursuits

  Civilian serious injury immediate/pursuits

  Civilian other injuries immediate/pursuits

  Avon and Somerset

  507

  229

  82

  0

  1

  45

  2

  13

  21

  Bedfordshire

  205

  93

  19

  0

  2

  5

  0

  1

  11

  Cambridgeshire

  256

  107

  19

  0

  2

  15

  0

  4

  7

  Cheshire

  194

  102

  28

  0

  3

  18

  0

  5

  16

  City of London

  80

  19

  4

  0

  1

  7

  0

  0

  4

  Cleveland

  75

  22

  7

  0

  0

  8

  0

  2

  2

  Cumbria

  116

  19

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  320

  96

  27

  0

  7

  18

  0

  4

  14

  Devon and Cornwall

  250

  64

  21

  0

  0

  9

  0

  4

  20

  Dorset

  119

  56

  12

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  8

  Durham

  159

  73

  18

  0

  0

  14

  0

  0

  16

  Dyfed-Powys

  75

  19

  6

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  4

  Essex

  391

  93

  20

  0

  1

  15

  1

  0

  16

  Gloucestershire

  196

  91

  13

  0

  3

  6

  0

  1

  3

  Greater Manchester

  957

  1n/a

  1n/a

  0

  7

  61

  2

  7

  30

  Gwent

  195

  38

  2

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  2

  Hampshire

  555

  161

  24

  0

  0

  12

  0

  0

  25

  Hertfordshire

  223

  75

  15

  0

  3

  16

  0

  1

  6

  Humbersire

  188

  37

  9

  0

  0

  6

  0

  2

  5

  Kent

  423

  180

  27

  0

  5

  12

  1

  4

  5

  Lancashire

  449

  85

  20

  0

  2

  7

  2

  2

  17

  Leicestershire

  214

  78

  12

  0

  0

  2

  2

  1

  7

  Lincolnshire

  71

  36

  5

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  3

  Merseyside

  320

  135

  139

  0

  3

  101

  2

  3

  139

  Metropolitan Police

  3,783

  1,308

  320

  0

  43

  352

  1

  27

  189

  Norfolk

  192

  45

  10

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  7

  North Wales

  95

  22

  9

  0

  2

  7

  0

  0

  3

  North Yorkshire

  131

  48

  11

  0

  1

  6

  0

  4

  9

  Northamptonshire

  134

  68

  19

  0

  0

  11

  0

  2

  14

  Northumbria

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  Nottinghamshire

  298

  135

  28

  0

  1

  22

  0

  4

  12

  South Wales

  597

  79

  4

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  292

  98

  33

  0

  1

  33

  0

  2

  21

  Staffordshire

  557

  156

  39

  0

  0

  33

  0

  0

  6

  Suffolk

  136

  21

  4

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  3

  Surrey

  270

  125

  26

  0

  3

  18

  0

  1

  8

  Sussex

  401

  140

  35

  0

  1

  19

  0

  8

  33

  Thames Valley

  888

  398

  19

  0

  3

  5

  1

  2

  8

  Warwickshire

  137

  46

  15

  0

  0

  7

  0

  0

  8

  West Mercia

  175

  55

  12

  0

  5

  10

  0

  0

  5

  West Midlands

  1,503

  295

  53

  0

  0

  54

  1

  1

  35

  West Yorkshire

  728

  15

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  Wiltshire

  53

  10

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Provincial total

  13,125

  3,664

  850

  0

  57

  627

  14

  80

  555

  England and Wales Total

  216,908

  34,972

  41,170

  50

  5100

  5979

  515

  5107

  5744

  Police Vehicles (Accidents)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accidents involving police vehicles there were in each police area in each of the past three years; and what was the severity of the injuries incurred in each case. [112924]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information set out in the table has been provided by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, to which forces submit statistical returns. The statistics collect all incidents in which a police vehicle sustains damage, including those where no other vehicle is involved. Figures for the injury classifications are available only for collisions where the police vehicle was responding to an emergency call or in pursuit of another vehicle.
  551W

  1997

  Total police vehicle accidents

  No limmediate response/pursuit

  Immediate/pursuit

  Fatal RTAs immediate/pursuits

  Police serious injury immediate/pursuits

  Police other injuries immediate/pursuits

  Civilian fatal PVAs immediate/pursuits

  Civilian serious injury immediate/pursuits

  Civilian other injuries immediate/pursuits

  Avon and Somerset

  477

  184

  21

  0

  4

  8

  0

  0

  9

  Bedfordshire

  320

  83

  14

  0

  0

  5

  0

  2

  7

  Cambridgeshire

  303

  123

  26

  0

  8

  20

  0

  5

  10

  Cheshire

  111

  83

  21

  0

  1

  19

  0

  0

  6

  City of London

  62

  13

  4

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Cleveland

  86

  39

  9

  0

  1

  5

  0

  0

  15

  Cumbria

  133

  20

  5

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  1

  Derbyshire

  383

  84

  22

  0

  0

  19

  1

  0

  14

  Devon and Cornwall

  308

  93

  18

  0

  0

  14

  0

  1

  11

  Dorset

  139

  44

  12

  0

  0

  5

  0

  3

  4

  Durham

  142

  33

  14

  0

  1

  15

  0

  1

  8

  Dyfed-Powys

  42

  9

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  396

  109

  27

  0

  0

  18

  0

  5

  21

  Gloucestershire

  147

  61

  7

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  4

  Greater Manchester

  774

  195

  56

  0

  3

  46

  8

  4

  18

  Gwent

  182

  57

  3

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  594

  78

  13

  0

  0

  3

  0

  2

  8

  Hertfordshire

  196

  55

  11

  0

  0

  5

  0

  1

  7

  Humberside

  207

  66

  18

  0

  2

  18

  0

  0

  5

  Kent

  546

  138

  22

  0

  3

  25

  0

  1

  6

  Lancashire

  268

  53

  41

  0

  2

  32

  0

  2

  31

  Leicestershire

  173

  30

  26

  0

  0

  8

  0

  3

  33

  Lincolnshire

  94

  26

  7

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  2

  Merseyside

  414

  119

  59

  0

  4

  89

  1

  3

  28

  Metropolitan Police

  4,045

  1,422

  396

  0

  47

  419

  1

  28

  246

  Norfolk

  211

  36

  15

  0

  1

  4

  0

  2

  16

  North Wales

  48

  9

  4

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  North Yorkshire

  140

  51

  19

  0

  4

  9

  0

  2

  14

  Northamptonshire

  139

  43

  6

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  5

  Northumbria

  489

  180

  47

  0

  1

  37

  1

  1

  22

  Nottinghamshire

  278

  141

  38

  0

  2

  50

  0

  1

  18

  South Wales

  563

  104

  21

  0

  2

  11

  0

  1

  7

  South Yorkshire

  357

  139

  19

  0

  1

  13

  0

  2

  12

  Staffordshire

  644

  142

  33

  0

  0

  24

  0

  0

  9

  Suffolk

  122

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Surrey

  108

  55

  16

  0

  0

  12

  0

  1

  4

  Sussex

  282

  138

  34

  0

  2

  14

  3

  11

  22

  Thames Valley

  688

  394

  61

  0

  1

  43

  0

  3

  56

  Warwickshire

  135

  41

  19

  0

  2

  13

  0

  0

  4

  West Mercia

  270

  49

  11

  0

  0

  10

  0

  0

  7

  West Midlands

  1,367

  291

  99

  0

  6

  60

  0

  6

  27

  West Yorkshire

  500

  1n/a

  66

  0

  4

  53

  0

  2

  42

  Wiltshire

  63

  23

  7

  0

  0

  6

  0

  1

  6

  Provincial total

  12,901

  3,635

  972

  0

  59

  734

  14

  66

  524

  England and Wales Total

  216,946

  35,057

  41,368

  50

  5106

  51,153

  515

  594

  5770

  1998

  Total police vehicle accidents

  No immediate response/pursuit

  Immediate/pursuit

  Fatal RTAs immediate/pursuits

  Police serious injury immediate/pursuits

  Police other injuries immediate/pursuits

  Civilian fatal PVAs immediate/pursuits

  Civilian serious injury immediate/pursuits

  Civilian other injuries immediate/pursuits

  Avon and Somerset

  531

  149

  29

  0

  1

  35

  0

  2

  34

  Bedfordshire

  161

  77

  15

  0

  0

  6

  1

  2

  6

  Cambridgeshire

  238

  98

  22

  0

  0

  9

  0

  5

  13

  Cheshire

  142

  69

  16

  0

  4

  14

  0

  0

  4

  City of London

  64

  25

  7

  0

  0

  6

  0

  1

  3

  Cleveland

  44

  30

  8

  0

  0

  12

  0

  0

  4

  Cumbria

  87

  21

  11

  0

  3

  10

  0

  3

  8

  Derbyshire

  399

  69

  20

  0

  2

  10

  0

  1

  14

  Devon and Cornwall

  337

  57

  10

  0

  0

  7

  0

  1

  7

  Dorset

  129

  53

  13

  0

  1

  5

  0

  0

  7

  Durham

  184

  86

  27

  0

  0

  11

  1

  0

  22

  Dyfed-Powys

  40

  9

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Essex

  406

  104

  27

  0

  0

  15

  1

  2

  23

  Gloucestershire

  163

  87

  14

  0

  0

  9

  0

  0

  12

  Greater Manchester

  933

  210

  61

  0

  1

  66

  2

  1

  26

  Gwent

  217

  50

  14

  0

  1

  20

  0

  0

  5

  Hampshire

  560

  96

  21

  0

  0

  6

  0

  1

  14

  552W

  553W

  1998

  Total police vehicle accidents

  No immediate response/pursuit

  Immediate/pursuit

  Fatal RTAs immediate/pursuits

  Police serious injury immediate/pursuits

  Police other injuries immediate/pursuits

  Civilian fatal PVAs immediate/pursuits

  Civilian serious injury immediate/pursuits

  Civilian other injuries immediate/pursuits

  Hertfordshire

  197

  70

  20

  0

  3

  11

  0

  7

  11

  Humberside

  236

  70

  11

  1

  0

  10

  0

  0

  6

  Kent

  448

  81

  19

  0

  0

  17

  0

  4

  4

  Lancashire

  160

  29

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  186

  20

  8

  0

  0

  16

  2

  0

  2

  Lincolnshire

  185

  37

  10

  0

  0

  7

  0

  0

  3

  Mersey side

  262

  113

  50

  0

  0

  67

  0

  2

  16

  Metropolitan Police

  4,645

  1,683

  426

  0

  45

  280

  1

  25

  310

  Norfolk

  184

  30

  6

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  5

  North Wales

  46

  10

  6

  0

  1

  10

  0

  0

  2

  North Yorkshire

  140

  59

  12

  0

  1

  6

  0

  6

  8

  Northamptonshire

  91

  26

  8

  0

  1

  9

  0

  3

  2

  Northumbria

  472

  141

  50

  0

  1

  29

  0

  7

  17

  Nottinghamshire

  225

  107

  19

  0

  2

  23

  0

  0

  2

  South Wales

  651

  168

  19

  0

  3

  16

  0

  0

  3

  South Yorkshire

  400

  185

  54

  0

  2

  30

  1

  3

  18

  Staffordshire

  646

  167

  31

  0

  0

  19

  0

  3

  9

  Suffolk

  168

  16

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Surrey

  108

  43

  11

  0

  0

  8

  0

  1

  8

  Sussex

  223

  42

  17

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  Thames Valley

  918

  350

  71

  0

  1

  63

  0

  0

  62

  Warwickshire

  123

  51

  12

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  6

  West Mercia

  260

  33

  5

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  2

  West Midlands

  1,210

  201

  33

  0

  0

  38

  0

  1

  27

  West Yorkshire

  453

  1n/a

  29

  0

  29

  0

  1

  22

  0

  Wiltshire

  66

  15

  8

  0

  0

  5

  0

  2

  4

  Provincial total

  12,693

  3,354

  828

  1

  58

  642

  9

  82

  421

  England and Wales Total

  217,338

  35.037

  41,254

  51

  5103

  5922

  510

  5107

  5731

  1 n/a appears where the force was unable to supply the data

  2 Covers all collisions involving police vehicles

  3 Collisions occurring where the police vehicle is on an immediate response or in pursuit of a vehicle

  4 Collisions where injury occurred

  5 Classification only for collisions where the police vehicle is on an immediate response or in pursuit

  Romanian Orphans Trust
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the Charity Commission took no action following their investigation of the financial affairs of the Romanian Orphans Trust in 1998. [112929]

  Mr. Boateng
  After a comprehensive review of the Romanian Orphanage Trust's activities and administration, following allegations of financial impropriety in 1998, the Charity Commission concluded there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations. The Commission decided that, while the charity was having to operate in extremely difficult circumstances, charitable funds were protected and proper safeguards and management controls were in place.

  The Charity Commission has been in contact with the charity about new allegations which have recently come to light and is evaluating them carefully. Commission Investigation officers will continue to seek to ensure that charitable funds are used appropriately and properly.

  Essex Constabulary
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) police officers and (b) constables there will be in (i) the Colchester Division and (ii) the Tendering Division of the Essex Constabulary on 31 March; and what were the equivalent figures for the same date in (a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999; [113108]
  554W
  (2) how many (a) police officers and (b) constables there will be in the Essex Constabulary at the time when the new boundaries for the Metropolitan police come into force; and if he will provide the equivalent figures for the same enlarged area for 31 March in (a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [113111]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information has been provided by the Chief Constable of Essex. I understand that the force is only able to provide figures as at 1 March for each year for the number of officers in the Colchester and Tendering Divisions. These are set out in the tables.

  Ministers have no direct control over police numbers. Under legislation passed by the previous Government in 1994, it is for individual chief constables to determine the number of police officers in their forces within the resources that are available. It is not, therefore, possible for us to estimate how many officers Essex would have had if the boundary changes had been implemented in earlier years. I understand from the Chief Constable that for 2000–01 it is estimated that the Essex Police will have 2,995 police officers (115 more than on 1 March 2000) following the boundary changes on 1 April; 2,307 out of this total will be constables (90 more than on 1 March 2000).

  I understand from the Chief Constable that the reduction in police numbers in Colchester and Tendering Divisions is a result of centralisation of the force information room and

  555W
  the civilianisation of non-operational police posts. This has contributed to an increase in the number of operational officers that are available.

  Colchester Division

  Year (as at 1 March)

  Total police numbers

  Constable numbers

  1997

  185

  146

  1998

  187

  147

  1999

  179

  141

  2000

  167

  128

  Tendering Division

  Year (as at 1 March)

  Total police numbers

  Constable numbers

  1997

  199

  152

  1998

  195

  151

  1999

  202

  156

  2000

  175

  136

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what areas are to be transferred from the Metropolitan Police to the Essex Police. [113106]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  On 1 April 2000, the responsibility for policing the part of Epping Forest District currently policed by the Metropolitan Police Service will transfer to the Essex Police. This area is defined in legislation as the parish of Waltham Abbey and the area of the former urban district of Chigwell. It includes Waltham Abbey, Chigwell, Loughton and Buckhurst Hill.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been applied for in each police force area in(a) England and (b) Wales; and if he will make a statement. [113134]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 21 February 2000,Official Report, column 824W.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has held with local authorities about increasing the use of anti-social behaviour orders. [113125]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  On 15 October 1999, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to the Chief Executive of each local authority about the provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, including the anti-social behaviour order, to tackle problems caused by unruly behaviour. An action group was subsequently established, involving representatives of local authorities and others, to consider issues relating to the use of anti-social behaviour orders. That group is now arranging a series of 10 regional seminars. The seminars will be held over the next few weeks and will provide an opportunity to share good practice, based on the rising number of successful applications for anti-social behaviour orders, and to consult on the terms of a model agreement, or protocol, which local partnerships can use as a basis for effective co-operation in tackling anti-social behaviour.

  Departmental Recruitment
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total cost to public funds of his Department's current recruitment advertising campaign for(a) press officers and (b) internal communications advisers; and if he will make a statement. [113208]

  Mr. Straw
  The total cost of current press officer recruitment advertising is approximately £31,700, including VAT. The Government Information and Communication Service has funded this advertising centrally, as the appointed press officers will be members of the Service and the recruitment process is likely to provide candidates for other Government press offices. There has been no cost to the Home Office. The total cost of advertising for internal communication advisers is £26,555 plus VAT. In addition, Capita RAS has charged the Home Office £15,300 plus VAT for its recruitment services, which include sifting and preparing interview panel facilities for the internal communication posts.

  Voting Methods (Pilot Projects)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his answer to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and the Weald of 29 February on pilot projects of alternative voting methods,(a) for what reasons (i) the Local government Association and (ii) journalists were informed of his provisional decisions, and why he imposed no restriction on publication before Parliament had been informed, (b) why he chose not to inform Parliament of his provisional decisions, (c) if he expects his final decisions on the projects to differ from his provisional decisions, and (d) if he will list the journalists whom he informed of his provisional decisions on 15 February; and if he will make a statement. [113279]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information was made available to journalists and the Local Government Association because they requested it.

  No statement was made to Parliament as my decisions were only provisional. Final decisions will not be made until after the Representation of the People Bill has received Royal Assent, at which point Parliament will be informed of them.

  One journalist from "The Independent" newspaper was given the information on 15 February. Others were given it, on request, later in that week.

  Press Office
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to increase the size of his Department's Press Office; what will be the cost of those plans; and if he will make a statement. [113207]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the replies I gave her on 2 March 2000,Official Report, columns 384–85W.

  Refugee Dispersal
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome to date of the policy of dispersal of refugees. [99707]
  557W
  Mrs. Roche
  [pursuant to her reply, 6 December 1999, c. 379–80W]: I propose to bring in the new support arrangements on Monday 3 April 2000 for asylum seekers who make their applications at a port of entry from that date. The entitlement of new port applicants to cash, social security and housing benefits will thereupon cease; in-country applicants do not have this entitlement.

  Those who apply for asylum from that date and who are then detained at Oakington reception centre whether their application is port or in-country will go onto the new support arrangements.

  I shall also make arrangements for asylum seekers who claim asylum and support from 3 April in Scotland or Northern Ireland and who are eligible for support to come on to the new support arrangements.

  It is my intention to bring the new support arrangements on stream as soon as possible for other asylum seekers who make in-country applications for asylum in England and Wales and for those in England and Wales who claim asylum at their port of entry prior to 3 April 2000 who receive a negative decision and who then go on to appeal. Until then, responsibility for providing support will continue under the terms of Schedule 9 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

  The new support arrangements comprehensively change the system by which asylum seekers are supported. A phased implementation of the kind described in this answer is the sensible course, drawing on the lessons from previous experience in implementing major change. The arrangements have been tested in simulated trials. Bringing port applicants on to the scheme first will enable the National Asylum Support Service to deal with any teething difficulties before rolling out the scheme fully.

  The new support arrangements provide that asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute may be supported by the National Asylum Support Service. Support will consist of the provision of accommodation on a no-choice basis in cluster areas in the United Kingdom. Essential living needs will be met either in kind
  558W
  or by the provision of vouchers. There will also be a cash voucher valued at £10 per person per week which can be exchanged for cash.

  The scheme is intended fully to meet the United Kingdom's international obligations in relation to those who are genuinely fleeing persecution while, at the same time, deterring those who are seeking to evade immigration control by using the asylum process.

  During the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, we gave an undertaking that new asylum applications from families with children would not be brought on to the new support arrangements in April 2000 unless we are satisfied that the targets of delivering most initial asylum decisions within two months and most appeals in a further four months could be met in such cases.

  We have put in place arrangements to identify and deal promptly with new asylum applications from families with children: the arrangements are being closely monitored. As a result, provisional figures show that, of the new family applications made in eight weeks after 1 November, over 70 per cent. have received an initial decision within two months of receipt. At the end of January, the average waiting time for all asylum appeals to be dealt with by an adjudicator was 13 weeks. On this basis, I have decided that from 3 April, the new asylum support arrangements should apply to new applications from families with children as they apply to other applicants.

  I have also decided that some modification of the targets is necessary for applications which might be the responsibility of another European Union member state under the Dublin Convention. In these cases, the process of consulting other member states normally takes more than two months, but there is then no suspensive right of appeal if another country accepts responsibility for consideration of the substantive claim. For that reason, the target for reaching an initial decision in potential Dublin cases will be to resolve most cases within four months of receipt. The normal further four month target for dealing with an appeal will apply in the event that the case is not transferred and there is a substantive refusal.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Academic Medicine: Vacant Chairs
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many chairs of academic medicine are now vacant, and what action they propose to take to encourage suitable candidates to come forward.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, these data are not collected centrally. However, I am aware that concerns are being expressed about filling some of the posts. Work is in hand by the universities to establish the size of the problem. We shall consider whether further action is needed at the national level once we have received the results of that work.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, that is a very interesting Answer. However, will the noble Baroness agree that the problem is caused at least in part by people who should be engaged in research and training being pushed into clinical duties? Does she agree that that gives Ministers, particularly in the other place, the opportunity to give well dressed up answers to show that they have fulfilled their pledges, which they probably have not, and that they are doing better than their predecessors, which they should be doing but are not?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure about well dressed up answers being produced in the other place. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that there can be no question of academic clinical staff being pushed into NHS work simply in order to bolster the statistics of the numbers of doctors working in the NHS. Academic clinical staff are, of course, a very small proportion of the total numbers in the medical profession. However, I am aware that there are many time pressures on that particular category of staff. They are required to carry out good research and there are great pressures on them to achieve in the research assessment exercise (RAE). They have considerable teaching responsibilities but many of them carry out clinical work, too. Some work must be done to ensure that the balance is right and that the jobs do not become unsustainable and unattractive because too much is expected of that particular category.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I can answer the noble Baroness's query. At present there are 74 vacant clinical chairs in the United Kingdom. Does she agree that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is right in that, to some extent, the pressures of clinical
792
work to the detriment of teaching and research have affected recruitment in clinical academic medicine? Further, does she agree that with the Government's commitment to introducing an additional 1,000 medical students, it is crucial that this sector of clinical academic medicine should be improved? Will she take account of the Savill report of the Academy of Medical Sciences, published today, which makes a number of important and innovative suggestions about how to improve recruitment in clinical academic medicine?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes. I shall be delighted to take into account the work of the Savill report. Of course, that will be a matter also for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health, who is responsible for the NHS side of this issue. However, perhaps I may address the question of the 74 vacancies. That figure derives from a BMA survey, not from centrally collected statistics. The survey was not of the complete population of all medical schools. Moreover, one-third of those surveyed did not reply. Therefore, I believe that we must take the figures with a little pinch of salt. Perhaps I may say also that, of the 74 vacancies quoted in the unpublished BMA survey, 26 were in the process of being filled.
I am trying to provide the background to this matter in order to assist your Lordships. However, I do not in any way want to intimate that there are not considerable pressures on the people who occupy those posts. More work needs to be done in considering how to alleviate the pressures in order to ensure that the posts are filled. There will, of course, be another 1,000 medical students and that means that we shall need to recruit more staff in this category.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in fact, recruitment in academic medicine is presently at an all time low and that that may account partly for the failure to fill many of those chairs, rather than it being a matter purely of the recruitment process? Can she confirm what her department and the Department of Health are doing to improve recruitment into academic medicine? The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, referred to the report of the Academy of Medical Sciences. I wonder whether the Minister has looked particularly at the tenure track proposals made both by that academy and by the Royal College of Physicians?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, I am aware of both those reports. However, the recruitment of academic staff is, of course, a matter for the universities; it is not carried out by central government, as the noble Lord is fully aware. The universities are looking at all those issues. Further work is being done. The group which is taking it forward is expected to report in May or June. When the Government receive that report, they will consider whether anything needs to be done centrally. However, I would not be quite as gloomy as is the

793
noble Lord about general overall recruitment in academic medicine. I have received reports that there is still a large number of young doctors who are very attracted by this type of work.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, since the noble Baroness has confessed that she does not know the size of the problem, should we not perhaps have a tsar to look at academic medicine? If such an appointment is made, perhaps he or she should look at not only the number of medical students but also at the percentage of those medical students who go into full-time work, whether it be of an academic nature or as clinicians?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not know that we need either a tsar or a tsarina for that particular purpose. It is important that young medical students who are about to qualify are given information about all the options available to them. But substantial numbers of them are interested in research and go into research. That is one reason why the UK is ahead of many other countries in terms of both the quantity and quality of its medical research.
On the noble Lord's more general question, the vast majority of young people or, indeed, slightly older people—because more mature students are coming into medicine—who qualify go into careers in medicine.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, if, as the Minister said, the review was incomplete and medical schools did not reply, that means that there is a minimum of 74 vacant chairs. That must be so if the questionnaires were not completed. In view of the fact that there is not the slightest doubt that morale is very low in the world of academic medicine, will she consider revising the answer which she gave a few moments ago when she said that she would consider whether further action is necessary? Such action is desperately needed now.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is really a matter for universities. The Government do not directly recruit people into universities. They are not the employer in that case. Nor do the Government set the pay of academic staff. Again, that is a matter for the universities, as are the conditions under which people work. So it would be quite wrong for the Government to set down in stone today what should be done. More work needs to be done to consider the extent of the problem. I do not know whether there are more than 74 such vacancies. I suspect that there are not because I suspect that those medical schools which did not reply are more likely to be those that do not have a particular problem. I do not know. But we need to have all the data in front of us before we decide whether further action is needed.

Death Penalty: Worldwide Abolition
2.44 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What efforts they have made to secure the worldwide abolition of the death penalty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. EU guidelines on death penalty démarches in third countries were agreed under our presidency, allowing us to raise both individual cases and capital punishment more generally. We have established a panel of independent experts to advise on practical steps to promote abolition. And we have led the EU efforts for a successful death penalty resolution at the UN Commission on Human Rights.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. In the light of her welcome commitment to support the European Union policy towards third countries which states that the death penalty,
"has no legitimate place in the penal system of modern civilised societies",
will the Government intensify their efforts to secure its abolition throughout the Commonwealth? Is my noble friend aware that up to last Thursday no fewer than 19 people have been put to death in the United States this year—three of them juvenile offenders and one of them a 62 year-old great grandmother who had suffered a lifetime of sexual, physical and emotional abuse and whose other misfortune was to live in the state of Texas where the governor is a candidate for the presidency of the United States?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly reassure my noble friend that the Government are doing all that they can to raise the issue internationally. Noble Lords will know that 108 countries have now effectively abolished capital punishment and only 87 now retain it. As regards the United States, we have joined our EU partners on a number of recent démarches in relation to specific cases at state and federal level. We are particularly concerned about executions of those under the age of 18 at the time of the offence, executions of those who are mentally incapable and executions of foreign nationals. It is a matter which we are pursuing with great vigour with all our partners and with some success.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the consistent support which the majority of church leaders in this country have given to the Government's policy for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty? Does she share the concern of these Benches about the alliance of politics and religion which, in the southern part of

795
the United States of America, so grotesquely perpetuates the use of the death penalty? In the light of the Government's earlier representations made to the US State Department in March 1999 and the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, will she say what other ways the Government have in mind to exert pressure on that religious and political alliance?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, perhaps I may say how grateful Her Majesty's Government are for the wholehearted support we have received from our Churches here. That has been extremely welcome. They have been a supportive element as opposed to a distraction. That is a benefit which not all legislators have enjoyed. I warmly thank the right reverend Prelate for raising that point.
We have done a great deal in the past two years to address the issue. Many noble Lords will know about the death penalty panel which brings together a number of academics. Regrettably, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, is not in her place because she has participated in that work. The panel is looking very creatively at making recommendations to assist the Government to see how they can most advantageously exert pressure and encourage countries to come away from the use of the death penalty. We are extremely grateful for all the work that has been undertaken by that panel.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, now that our relationship with Iran has improved considerably and the Iranian elections have produced a Majlis far more inclined towards human rights, will the Minister and her colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office make fresh representations to the Iranian Government that they should not execute the three students convicted of offences in connection with the student disorders at the university last July?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we shall continue to raise human rights issues with Iran. Issues relating to human rights and the death penalty cause us a great deal of concern. We shall continue to pursue them wherever they arise.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, is the Minister aware that last year executions in the United States reached a 48-year high, rising by nearly 50 per cent from the previous year? Are the Government entirely satisfied with that state of affairs, bearing in mind that according to a Written Answer of 16th April last year,
"The Foreign Secretary's Death Penalty Panel"—
to which the Minister referred—
"has … targeted the United States for action, and we are constantly reviewing the best way to tackle the US authorities over the death penalty"?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have said already that the matter causes us concern.
796
Considerable effort is going into the initiative. The noble Earl will know that it has been in existence since 1998. We have welcomed some recent improvements. For example, there is a moratorium in Illinois which highlights the practical problems associated with capital punishment. We welcome also the increased debate in the United States. Public awareness of the issues will be central to any change in policy. We are engaging in those matters. I do not hesitate to compliment the panel again because its work is incredibly valuable. We are taking its recommendations extremely seriously.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, since the abolitionist resolution before the third committee was sabotaged last year, will we be seeking other methods of bringing the matter before the General Assembly?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said earlier, we shall be engaging with our partners to try to ensure greater success than we have had in the past. We are extremely proud that, on the last occasion, the number of countries which joined with us in that endeavour rose significantly. We wish to pursue it and we shall continue to do so with great vigour.

Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group: Report
2.52 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to their response to the report of the Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group, how they propose to prevent widespread closure of small and medium-sized abattoirs and cutting plants and give confidence to their owners and to the wider farming community.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government recognise the difficulties of small and medium-sized abattoirs. The Red Tape Working Group, which we established, proposed a radical agenda to assist and give confidence to those sectors of the industry as well as to the wider farming community. The Government have accepted the vast majority of the group's recommendations and are now pursuing their implementation.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she appreciate that the one point absolutely crucial to the survival of small and medium-sized abattoirs—that relating to charges—is one of the three points which the Government did not accept? Will she please make it absolutely clear to her right honourable friend that most of the small abattoirs questioned—I believe 26 out of 28—said that they would probably have to close within the next 12 months if charges were

797
maintained and that that will have a devastating effect on the farming community both up and down the food chain? Will she bear in mind in particular the Prime Minister's exhortation to diversify which he made to farmers when he was in the West Country? This situation will crucify that policy.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I accept the noble Countess's point that it is important that we have a range of facilities and that small and medium-sized abattoirs can be extremely important for particular sectors and specialist sectors, which we want to encourage and where marketing is extremely important.
With regard to charging, we have taken action to help the whole of the sector; for example, by freezing the hourly rate of MHS charges at April 1999 levels and promising that they will not be raised by more than the rate of inflation this year; and by deferring the introduction of charges for cattle passports and for specified risk material enforcement until 2002. The further issue about the basis for charging (particularly around headage which, I believe, is the issue to which the noble Countess was referring) has been put forward to a task force which I understand will be meeting next week.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I declare an interest as a breeder of rare breed pigs. Apart from the general thesis of the noble Countess, with which I wholly agree, will the Minister accept that, in spite of the measures she has detailed, small and medium-sized abattoirs are rapidly closing all over the country, which will have a dramatic effect on the future survival of rare breeds? That is something which I am sure the Minister would deplore. Does she accept that the matter is urgent and that the Government badly need to do something about it if we are to preserve such remarkable leftovers?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I recognise the issue raised by the noble Viscount in respect of rare breeds. As I said in my earlier answer, there are specialist areas for which such abattoirs are of great importance. Over time, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of red meat slaughterhouses. We must recognise that. I was surprised to see that red meat slaughterhouses in this country declined in number from 1,385 in 1975 to 339 last year. Over the past 25 years, there has been an inexorable reduction.
One of the most important things we can do is to move from a prescriptive approach to a risk-based approach in abattoirs. That is one of the issues that my right honourable friend is pressing with Commissioner Byrne in Brussels today.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, one of the recommendations of the Red Tape Working Group was that a derogation for the smallest abattoirs should urgently be considered. When I raised the matter several months ago with the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, he
798
said that the Government were looking into it. Will the Minister tell the House what progress has been made with regard to looking for a derogation for the smallest slaughterhouses? Furthermore, does the ministry accept, in the light of its sustainable agriculture launch, which considers a number of indicators—economic, social and environmental—that the number of slaughterhouses serving the industry should be one of the indicators?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness an off-the-cuff answer on the second point, but I shall certainly look into the matter.
With regard to the derogation for a reduction in veterinary supervision for low throughput plants, we received an indication last year from the Commission that it was possible to have a reduction in such supervision at the post-mortem stage, but it was still necessary to have full supervision at the ante-mortem stage. For that reason, we froze veterinary supervision levels in low throughput plants at May 1999 levels. But we must consider carefully the implications of the differential between post and ante-mortem supervision. That is exactly what we are currently doing.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, has the Red Tape Working Group identified those rules and regulations which do not come out of Brussels and which have been superimposed over the years by officials here?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I recommend the Red Tape Working Group report, because it is written in robust and clear English. I am sure that the noble Lord would appreciate it. It makes clear comment about the possibilities and the matters which fall within national rather than European jurisdiction. Of the 35 recommendations, the Government have accepted 28. We are considering four of them and only three have been rejected. The most important recommendations must be negotiated at European level. They relate to the HACCP-based approach to supervision which I believe is supported here without exception. That is why it is important that we pursue those matters in Brussels. I believe that the working group accepted that point.

Merger Reform
3 p.m.
Lord Borrie Lord Borrie asked Her Majesty's Government:
When their proposals to restrict ministerial involvement in merger cases, as announced in August 1999, will be implemented.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is currently considering the responses to the Government's consultation on merger reform and plans to issue a response in May.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I had hoped to be slightly more encouraged by the Answer than I am. I hope

799
that the proposition in the consultation paper, that in future Ministers will be less likely to second-guess the competition authorities in such matters, will he carried forward. Will the Minister consider making a statement with instant effect so that the proposition put forward by the Government can be carried into effect immediately rather than awaiting legislation with the uncertain priorities that that will entail?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's point about awaiting legislation, but I do not believe that he is right to suggest that we should anticipate the proper consideration of consultation. After all, many people—companies, lawyers, the CBI, the TUC, consumer associations, regulators and individuals—have responded to the consultation document. They are entitled to have their views taken seriously. An instant statement of the kind recommended by my noble friend would scupper that.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister agree that this situation is widely regarded as the result of the dispute between the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry? In view of the Government's commitment to "joined-up" government, would it not be a good idea to take up the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have given my reasons for rejecting the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Borrie. As to any widely regarded view on disagreements between government departments, that is the view of the noble Lord.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a paradox in that although the Secretary of State will step back in relation to cases that arise in the United Kingdom, on his own analysis he will most probably be stepping forward in relation to European cases, given the White Paper produced by the Commission a year ago and the problems of consistency between national administrations?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point that was indeed raised by the Secretary of State in his speech last Monday to the Social Market Foundation. The Secretary of State certainly recognises that the European dimension is likely to make some decision-making political, and as a result that will make the residual intervention of the Secretary of State under the national security heading perhaps more likely.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will my noble friend ask his right honourable friend to reflect on a fundamental matter: this Government introduced the Competition Act 1998 which, for the first time, gives us a stringent piece of pro-competition legislation? Does it follow logically from that extraordinarily powerful Act that the Secretary of State for Trade—I believe he is still so called—should not intervene as a matter of principle and that industry should get used to the idea that competition is a good thing and should not scream
800
"national interest" every time it affects them. Rather like celibacy, industry believes competition is a good idea for everybody else. In this case competition is good. The Minister should say so and that he will not get involved.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend has given me an opportunity to say that he is right. The powerful Competition Act came into force on 1st March. Already it is beefing-up the activities of the Office of Fair Trading, the offices of the utilities regulators and many others. That is not an argument for pre-judging the consultation that has taken place. Other people have taken it seriously, as must the Government. However, the important consideration is that the Government have taken such issues seriously and have given the necessary powers to regulators and government bodies to pursue anti-competitive practices with proper penalties.

Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee: Select Committee
3.4 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the operation of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England and to make recommendations; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Barnett,

L. Burns,

L. Cuckney,

L. Elder,

L. Forsyth of Drumlean,

B. Hogg,

L. Newby,

B. O'Cathain,

L. Paul,

L. Peston (Chairman),

L. Roll of Ipsden,

L. Taverne;

That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee do meet on Tuesday 7th March at quarter past four o'clock.—(The Chairman Of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services and Markets Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Financial Services and Markets Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 20,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 21 to 29,

Schedules 3 and 4,

Clauses 30 to 34,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 35 to 39,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 40 to 72,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 73 to 85,

Schedule 8,

Clause 86,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 87 to 98,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 99 to 106,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 107 to 123,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 124 to 153,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 154 to 156,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 157 to 196,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 197 to 219,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 220 to 324,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 325 to 407,

Schedules 18 and 19,

Clause 408.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Representation of the People Bill
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 9 [Restriction on supply of information contained in register]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 1:
802
Leave out Clause 9.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 seeks to leave out Clause 9 as this Bill is not the occasion on which to seek to resolve questions relating to the commercial use of the register without the consent of the person registering and because there has been no reasoned, constructive discussion with the Government on Clause 9.
This is not a wrecking amendment. The Representation of the People Bill can receive Royal Assent and be wholly effective without this clause. On the elections to the Greater London Authority, they could be subject to Amendments Nos. 3, 20 and consequential amendments.
On Report the point was taken that Clause 9 should not stand part unless the Bill was amended to ensure that a single register could not be used for any commercial purpose without the consent of the person registering and that unless the Government were prepared to accept some such amendment Clause 9 should not stand part. The effect would be that the present situation would remain with a single register available for the public in public buildings. The Government have been advised that to make that register available to anyone who wanted to buy it would be a breach of the EU data protection directive and that there would be a risk of it being found to be in breach also of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The situation is that the Government wish to sell the register to commercial interests that wish to buy it. The annual income of such commercial interests is some £30 billion and so by Clause 9 the Government seek to introduce a device whereby they can sell the register and commercial interests can buy it. That device is the edited version which seeks to avoid an infringement of Article 8. In that regard, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, informed us that he believed that the clause was on the right side of the law and formed the right balance without falling into the Article 8 bear trap. We do not have the substance of the advice he was given, which would appear to conflict with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights to which reference was made in Committee.
Further questions raised in Committee, to which I shall turn briefly, remain unanswered. The Government intend to stand by Clause 9 because it suits their purpose. No means of reasoned argument or persuasion can induce them to accept any amendment to Clause 9 and there is therefore no point in retabling such an amendment.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, went some way in supporting the amendment. On Report he expressed a good deal of sympathy but was unable to support the amendment because,
"it simplifies what is a complex situation".—[Official Report, 29/2/00; col. 461.]
I agree with that. At Second Reading, having referred to current trading practices which had reached the proportions of unacceptable abuse of individual privacy, I said that this order of abuse had been augmented by the advances in technology and will be

803
so augmented in the future. We are now on the fringe of a further leap in development in this area by resort to a new type of use of the Internet. I also said that the workings of these processes were beyond my comprehension and I doubted my confidence to draft a truly effective amendment.
On Report, just before the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I said that to seek to resolve the question on this Representation of the People Bill, involving database protection, an EU directive on direct marketing, Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and other considerations, was not well advised; that the two registers under Clause 9, which I now seek to leave out were,
"a total misconception; they are unnecessary and unacceptable; they were devised only to serve those commercial interests [and the purposes of government]".—[col. 461.];
and that these matters should be dealt with in a separate Bill.
Because the Government will not entertain any acceptable amendment in this matter for the reasons given, the only reasonable resolution appears to be that this clause should not stand part. I say that there has been no constructive argument from the Government and wish briefly to make that comment good.
First, on Report it was pointed out that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, had plainly failed to deal with the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth—how the two-tier system would work; whether it would be enforceable; and that we should have to go a long way in considering the issues. None of those points was answered. Furthermore, the substance of the Government's assertion that they were on the right side of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights has never been made good in argument. They have never supplied me with either paper or verbal response to say why I was wrong in my suggestion that the provision would infringe Article 8 and why the Government are on the right side of the law.
Lastly, the Government do not seem to have given their mind to dealing with the questions put by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I shall not go through them in detail; we have been through them all too often. I refer to the ticking of the box, the options for selection and so forth. They are all crucial considerations, but even today we do not know where the Government stand on them. They remain examples of the disinclination of this Government to entertain constructive argument. It is idle to seek to amend this clause; I seek to have it removed altogether. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. As we come to the Third Reading of the Bill. this clause remains most unsatisfactory. We made a little progress on it when we agreed that each individual elector should tick his or her own box, or at least that an obligation should be placed on the head of a household in regard to whether each member of that household wanted the box ticked. That was progress from where we had started; namely, that the head of the household would tick the box for the whole household and was not under any obligation to ascertain the position of other members.
But I remain uncertain as to how the Government see this clause operating in practice. A full electoral register will be available to the registration officer, MPs, councillors, candidates and others; in other words, it will be used for electoral purposes. There will also be an edited version containing a list of those who decide not to opt out.
The reasons given for opting out were many. We started with what I shall refer to as the "battered wife" argument: a husband wishing to find out where his wife has fled from his brutality will simply be able to obtain access to the electoral register and find out where she has gone. But that husband will still be able to do that. He will be able to go to the library and inspect the register. So that argument has been blown out of the water before it has even started.
Another argument was that if people's names do not appear on the edited version available to companies involved in direct mailing, they will not receive any junk mail. Those who think that by excluding themselves from the register of electors they will no longer receive junk mail will be disillusioned; they will find that the junk mail still arrives, because those who send junk mail have other means of finding names and addresses. So there will be a degree of disappointment in that regard.
Despite that, the legitimate point was raised by my noble friend that, under the European Convention on Human Rights, one should not be forced to give one's name and address and have them appear in a list when they can then be used for purposes other than electoral purposes.
I regret that my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth is unable to be here today. Mondays are difficult for him because he gives lectures to his students. He would have confirmed what my noble friend has already said. An electoral register should be a register of electors, and that is all that it should be. There should be no edited version or commercial sale and no one else should be allowed to use it. I find that to be a simple, nice, black and white solution to the problem.
However, that is not the solution the Government have chosen. They have been persuaded that credit companies and so forth ought to be able to get at the list. Otherwise those seeking credit may well find themselves unable to secure it. The electoral register is

805
used by companies to verify whether someone genuinely does live at the address given. I understand the point and I have some sympathy with it.
We have been through these arguments several times and I do not believe that we have moved any further forward. At all stages I have asked questions about companies that might be allowed access to the full list. I have not yet had a detailed reply. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway knows much more about the legal position but it seems to me that even the edited version may be seen as an infringement of the convention and that the full version will almost certainly represent an infringement if it is sold on to those companies the Government are to prescribe.
The European convention has resulted in some strange decisions. I acknowledge that the Minister has declared that the Bill's provisions obey the convention. I have to tell him that I am less confident and that I consider there is only a 50:50 chance of success. That has nothing to do with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton; it has everything to do with the experience we have had in Scotland. I have explained previously that a case was brought under the convention to stop temporary sheriffs, a system that had been used perfectly satisfactorily for years. A further case threatens the workings of the road traffic Acts as regards speed cameras. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, explained to the House that an appeal is being considered. It was also suggested recently that hearings in sheriffs' courts could fall foul of the convention if, for whatever reason, a case is heard by two sheriffs, one at the beginning and one at the end. There is concern that the much-admired system of children's panels may be under attack from the convention. No less a person than the retired professor of Scots law at Glasgow University, Professor Walker, has described the convention as a "charter for cranks and crooks" because it is beginning to run a coach and horses through certain aspects of our legal system. In my view, and that of Professor Walker, this is neither beneficial to law-abiding people nor does it protect their civil liberties.
On a number of occasions my noble friend has asked whether this clause will fall foul of the European convention. He has not yet received an answer. Today, at the final stage, we seek a little more than a statement to the effect that. "I have signed the Bill so it must be all right". We should like to hear the arguments that persuade the Government that the clause does not infringe the convention. As I read the clause, I do not believe that it is going to work. I believe that it will be a shambles. It will not do what the Government believe it is going to do. They will have trouble with it and that trouble may lead all the way to the courts. I do not see how it can effectively be amended. Although I understand the need to allow people to opt out and why the Government have made provision for that, I can also understand why the Government then backtracked and decided that certain companies should be allowed access to the full register.
806
The whole matter still seems untidy. I cannot support my noble friend all the way by saying that the clause should not stand part of the Bill, but I regret that, as we reach the last stage of the Bill, it is still largely unamended and several serious questions remain unanswered.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, I confirm that through all the stages of the Bill I have expressed considerable support in principle for the views that lie behind his amendments. It seems important that information that is required by law to be given for particular purposes should not then be used for other purposes without the consent of those required to provide that information. In the circumstances, I can see that in Clause 9 the Government have gone some way towards solving the problem. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said, I recognise that there are still potential problems with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, I have to say that I regard that problem rather more sceptically than does the noble Lord and I do not feel that the risk is particularly serious.
As regards the text of the amendment proposed today by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—namely, to leave out the entire clause—I feel that we shall run into serious problems. From my point of view, Clause 9 makes things better rather than worse. Without the clause there would be no way of amending the existing rules that allow publication and sale of the full register to anyone who wishes to buy it. In those circumstances, I regard Clause 9 as a move in the right direction, although perhaps not the ideal move and not the final stopping place. However, it is a great deal better than having no such provision at all.
I accept the spirit that lies behind the noble Lord's proposed amendment but I regret that I cannot agree with it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has throughout our debates on the Bill ensured that we give very careful consideration to Clause 9, which places restrictions on the availability of the electoral register. He is quite right to do so. It is an important clause and we must make sure that we strike the right balance and take account of all our obligations, in particular under the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Data Protection Directive.
In our earlier debates the noble Lord moved amendments which would have had the effect of imposing more restrictions on the availability of the register than those for which Clause 9 provides. But, on this occasion—as he has made plain—he is proposing that we should stick with existing electoral law under which the register is freely available for commercial purposes.
As I explained in our earlier debates, I do not think that the status quo is an option. It is a statutory requirement to complete the electoral registration

807
form and to appear on the electoral register. A person who does not provide the necessary details may, in theory, be prosecuted.
We do not consider that a situation in which one is obliged, on pain of prosecution, to submit personal information which can then be used for completely different purposes without one's consent is acceptable. More to the point, we do not believe that this state of affairs complies with the EU Data Protection Directive. We have taken advice from the Data Protection Registrar. The noble Lord has seen copies of my officials' correspondence with her office.
Since our last debate, we have again looked at the legal issues raised by the noble Lord. I can confirm that we remain convinced that what we are proposing in Clause 9 is not in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights.
I believe that we need to strike a balance. On the one hand, there are the data protection and privacy concerns identified by the working party on electoral procedures. On the other hand, it is a fact that a large number of commercial concerns currently make use of the electoral register. If possible, we should avoid doing undue damage to their interests.
I do not intend to weary noble Lords this afternoon with a further full explanation of how the new arrangements will work. But, in brief, electors will be able to opt out of having their names included in the version of the register that will continue to be freely available for sale—the edited register. The full register will continue to be available for local inspection in town halls and libraries. It will also be available for electoral purposes to elected representatives, political parties and candidates; and to credit reference agencies for the purpose of confirming identity in connection with credit applications.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made a interesting point about some husbands still being able to find the addresses of their battered wives. That point was also mentioned in our earlier discussions. However, I believe that the noble Lord has missed the point that the register will be in libraries in paper form and set out by ward and street. Therefore, people need to know where the person lives in order find him or her on the register. The problem with "battering spouses" arises with CD-ROMs, through which people are reachable by name. Giving people the option to be excluded from the edited register means that they will not be included on such CD-ROMs and the easier method of finding people by a name search will not be available. People must have some idea of where the person lives in order to access that information from a paper-form register.
We cannot provide absolute protection, but the system will provide a degree of protection. Indeed, that important point was made by some noble Lords during our earlier discussions. It is an important consideration. I realise that this is a difficult matter, but we have not reached this position easily. In all honesty, we have tried to strike a balance while protecting privacy. We do not want to stymie completely the commercial use of the register, but we also recognise that the register is primarily compiled
808
for electoral purposes. That is what we have tried to achieve in Clause 9. No one is saying that it is a science of perfection. Time will ultimately tell us whether or not we have got it right.
For the time being, we must assume that we have got it right and work on that principle. I hope that noble Lords will support the clause on those terms. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, made some powerful and valuable arguments in his opening remarks, but, on the basis of my response, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I believe that the situation boils down to this. As appears in the Official Report, the noble Lord has received advice that if we just continue with a single public register and make it available to anyone who wants to buy it, we would be in breach of the EU Data Protection Directive. We would also be at risk of being found in breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. On that advice, the Minister has reiterated that the two-register proposal under Clause 9 will be on the right side of the law.
In a thin Chamber with—I believe I can say—relatively no overt support, it would be quite unusual and, indeed, improper to seek to take the opinion of the House. However, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his contribution, even though I could not quite understand his reasoning. If the single register were to remain in accordance with my proposals, it could not be bought or used. Therefore, I do not understand the object of the noble Lord's objection. But, be that as it may, this is not the time to reason; indeed, it is the time to seek leave to withdraw my amendment and thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for his contribution to my argument, which he was unable to support.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
FREE POST FOR GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY ELECTIONS
(" .—(1) The 1983 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) After section 36(2B) there shall be inserted—
"(2C) Section 91 shall apply to elections under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments tabled in my name. There are also amendments from the Government in this grouping. These amendments deal with the whole question of the free mailshot for the mayoral election. We have already dealt with this matter on a number of occasions and have discussed the issue with the Government. In the circumstances, the best thing that I can do is to introduce this as a debate about the London free mailshot and then sit down. That will

809
allow the Minister to tell your Lordships what the Government have brought forward by way of an offer. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord was commendably brief. All the amendments in the group deal with the vexed question of mailshots or freepost for elections to the Greater London Authority. As the noble Lord said, the issue has been debated on a number of occasions both here and in another place. I, for one, have learnt a great deal about the direct mailing industry as a consequence. It is a very fascinating business. We have all been grateful throughout these protracted discussions and debates to the representatives from that sector who have played a part in advising us.
When we last met to discuss the matter, noble Lords will recall that there were, so to speak, two rival propositions, as reflected in the amendments standing in both my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. The two propositions were, essentially, the Government's idea of a booklet containing inserts from every mayoral candidate and the Opposition's proposal for an envelope stuffed with material produced by every mayoral candidate.
As noble Lords will appreciate, the difference between these two methods of informing the electorate is very large indeed. The difference is a staple! The Government's proposal amalgamates candidates' material into a booklet which would be delivered in an envelope. The Opposition's proposal would have separate pieces of paper being placed in the same envelope—the envelope-stuffing option, one might say.
Some people may think that this staple was not worth spending much time over; others clearly did not hold that view. A great deal of time was spent on the matter by officials from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and from the Home Office. They have listened patiently and, I hope, politely to the arguments in favour of the staple-free method of delivery—the envelope-stuffing option. So eloquent were noble Lords and their representatives that hour upon hour of debate took place in the corridors of power on the matter of this staple. Indeed, we heard about the staple from a number of different angles, in so far as you can look at a staple from many different angles.
I do not wish to be unkind in this respect because we have had a discussion about serious issues. However, the matter could perhaps have been resolved more speedily. The solution that we reached—namely, the booklet—has required movement from all sides. We have accepted that there should be an election communication for this first election and a flexible power enabling permanent arrangements to be established for future elections. We hope that the Opposition will accept our concerns about cost and the need to guard against abuse.
I believe that we now have a very satisfactory outcome. I hope that it will be welcomed by smaller parties, poorer candidates and—dare I say it?—
810
independents, as well the major parties. It will give everyone in this whole exercise a level playing field from which to start. It will also provide those concerned with the opportunity to express themselves in their own way. Indeed, we may even take a certain pride in our discussions, differences and debates on the matter. Perhaps the GLA will build on the proposals in the future when it comes to consider election communications in the run-up to the 2004 election. We can all contribute to that debate too; perhaps we shall have another opportunity to exercise our minds on the question of whether or not to staple, or whether or not to stuff the envelope.
Let me now turn to the detail of the amendment and try to deal with it as quickly as I can lest I fall into the trap that has bedevilled many who have tried to wrestle with this vexed issue. Each candidate, or their agent, will submit an election address to the Greater London Returning Officer (the GLRO) covering no more than two sides of A5. The GLRO may specify certain requirements in order to be able to compile the booklet, but beyond that the candidate is free to decide what to include in those two sides and indeed whether to include any material in the booklet at all! Therefore there is a clear choice there.
To make this exercise feasible—printing 5 million copies of the booklet, inserting each copy into a pre-addressed envelope, and delivering to each elector in London before the first day of polling—we have had to set out some clear rules. One is that the booklet will be no longer than 32 pages. This means that each candidate's election address will cover two sides of the A5 booklet if fewer than 16 of the candidates standing nominated have had election addresses accepted by the GLRO by noon on 3rd April, but only one side if 16 or more have had addresses accepted. To allow for this, candidates will need to submit a second version of their election address to the GLRO covering a single side of A5.
Each candidate will need to have their election addresses approved by the Post Office before submitting them in a format to be decided by the GLRO. The addresses would need to comply with Post Office regulations similar to those that apply at general elections, but strengthened to guard against the potential of abuse. As noble Lords know, we treat the potential for abuse very seriously and are determined that the booklet should not be waylaid by unscrupulous candidates. The amendment therefore makes clear that candidates' election addresses must not contain any advertising material (other than material promoting the candidate as a candidate at the election), or any other material with a view to commercial gain.
No address may refer to any candidate standing for election to the assembly. I know that some noble Lords wanted mayoral candidates to be able to refer to assembly candidates in their election addresses. We have thought about this long and hard, taken advice, and concluded that it would be manifestly unfair to give some assembly candidates (such as those from

811
parties with a mayoral candidate) an advantage over others (such as independents) who would not be mentioned.
This issue is not clear-cut and I think that there may even be different views about it on the Opposition Benches. The simple fact is that allowing mayoral candidates to refer to assembly candidates would place some assembly candidates in a better position than their opponents. That does not seem right. As I said earlier, we are trying to create a level playing field. Time is short, and we believe that it is important not to bring this election into disrepute by legislating to create an unfair contest. That may be subject to some form of challenge and we do not want to run that risk.
The GLRO will determine the form of the booklet, and set out each address alphabetically, by candidate surname. He will also include a short section in the booklet to explain its purpose, and give some background to the election itself. I can assure the House that the GLRO will consult fully on this text, and on the design and layout of the booklet (although candidates may only have a very short time to respond). The GLRO will decide the date by which candidates must submit their election addresses to him, and the format in which they should be provided—we anticipate that it will be camera-ready copy.
Each candidate who wishes to include an address in the booklet will need to contribute £10,000 towards the cost of printing. I feel certain that your Lordships will consider this fair given that candidates themselves bear the cost of printing and mailing at a parliamentary election.
For future GLA elections, the amendment provides for the Secretary of State by order to make such provision for the free delivery of election communications as he thinks fit. Before making the order, he or she will consult the mayor, assembly, and any other body he considers appropriate, such as the electoral commission when that is established.
Amendment No. 20 provides for the only realistic process to deliver an election mailing to London electors in the time available before the first election. It meets the concerns of the Government and many of the concerns of noble Lords opposite. Let us not argue further over a staple and let us make progress in terms of seeking consent to the method that I have mentioned.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the outcome of the battle that has distracted your Lordships' House for some weeks now certainly reflects considerable credit on your Lordships' House and, in the outcome, also reflects credit on the Government, although I believe that the Government could, and should, have taken steps to remedy the situation a great deal earlier than they did.
Two weeks ago your Lordships' House decisively rejected the so-called "constitutional convention" that your Lordships' House does not reject secondary legislation, and threw out two orders that had been
812
made under the Greater London Authority Act. It did so in defence of democracy. The Government recognised that their position was indefensible and did not try to raise the "Peers against the people" issue.
We had fruitful and quite lengthy negotiations. Speaking for myself I wish to thank the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Whitty and Lord Bassam of Brighton, for the courteous way in which they listened to the arguments and for their willingness to take them on board. They accepted the principle of a freepost and negotiated that seriously and in good faith. I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Rennard, who unfortunately is otherwise engaged this afternoon, for his knowledge of what could and could not be done technically in the time available and his persuasiveness in explaining that.
The outcome is, of course, a compromise. We obtained a freepost for the mayoral election but not a separate freepost for assembly candidates. We obtained a freepost that will be delivered to all electors and not simply to households, which would have been unacceptable for reasons which I tried to explain at Report stage. Indeed, I believe that that was the main issue that was dealt with in the negotiations.
We obtained an agreement that the format and artwork should be a matter for each candidate to decide and that there should not be a rigid formula under which each candidate would be allowed simply a text of 200 words and a passport photograph, as the Government originally proposed. We accepted that addresses should go out as part of a booklet rather than as free-standing leaflets, collated into a single delivery.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, that mayoral candidates should not be allowed to refer to assembly candidates of the same party in their freepost because I fear that if that was allowed there could be a challenge to the fairness of the election process by independent assembly candidates, who, of course, would be unable to obtain a mention in any freepost leaflet.
Overall I believe that the opposition parties achieved most of what we wanted. We have made the elections for the mayoralty of London fairer, particularly for the smaller parties and the independents. I do not include among the independents for this purpose the honourable former friend of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, Mr Ken Livingstone, who is the last person to need a freepost as no doubt he will receive plenty of publicity without it!
Rightly, the amendment leaves the Greater London Authority itself to decide what should be done in subsequent elections. We shall in due course need to consider whether the freepost should be extended to direct elections for an executive mayor outside London. That is an issue of potential importance and certainly in major cities such as Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester or Newcastle it is hard to see how there can be a fair election without it. Speaking on

813
behalf of my party, we welcome very much the steps which the Government have taken to meet our objections in the matter of the London free post.
Lord Beaumont of Whitely: My Lords, speaking on behalf of my party, I also welcome the solution arrived at. I have but one query.
I welcome the booklet scheme. It seems to me that it is a good solution and that the Government have come down on the right side of the debate which has taken place very warmly on the subject. It is tremendously important for the democratic process that the booklet should go to every elector and not to every household; I welcome that wholeheartedly.
The only question to which I do not entirely know the answer concerns the issue of mayoral candidates not being allowed to refer in their address to other candidates for the council. For the reasons that have been given, I think that that is absolutely right. But some mayoral candidates—possibly those who have less likelihood of being elected, although no one ever knows what the electorate will do—also want to be elected as members of the council if they should fail in the mayoral election. Are they allowed to refer to this possibility? It is not a bull point for voting for them for mayor but, nevertheless, is probably a useful thing. Are they allowed to refer to this matter in the course of their election address for mayor?
Lord Monson: My Lords, I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who, at the previous stage, drew attention to the problems presented by blocks of flats where there might be only one large brass letterbox at street level serving, say, a dozen or 20 flats. If I understood the noble Lord correctly, it has been the practice of the Post Office up until now to push through the door only one electoral communication per block, so that only one of the flats' tenants would receive it. Have the Government thought of any way of overcoming that particular problem?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, on the becomingly modest way in which he spoke to his amendments. I think that it is a device which justifies a high degree of modesty, and the noble Lord met the requirement admirably.
I am not revealing anything at all surprising when I say that I was not in any way consulted. For that I am deeply grateful. Nor did I have any part in the negotiations which have produced this, to my mind, extraordinary arrangement. The noble Lord said that a great deal of time had been spent on the issue. I can understand that. He then made the candid admission that the matter could have been handled more speedily. I am not sure that the noble Lord is right about that. The subject contains material that would allow for almost endless delay. On the whole, I am rather surprised that in the end weariness came to his rescue and he was able—I shall not say, "to cut it short"—to reduce the length of the proceedings which otherwise may have obtained.
814
When it comes to the "birth" of the election booklet—if that is the right phrase—or when it makes its appearance, it will be a fairly astonishing document. I can bear witness and testify to the fact that it will probably not be the most widely read publication there has ever been. I also think that it will be useful to many people who are not taking any part in the election. I am sure that comedians—who, in our time, do not lack altogether raw material—will find it a useful quarry for further reference. The Minister said that it is important not to bring the election into disrepute. I agree with him. I think he can safely leave that little task to other people who will be more immediately involved than even he is.
My view, which I have attempted to express in your Lordships' House on previous occasions, is that the idea of having a mayor of London is a thoroughly bad one. The matter was not thought out by the Government and they have found themselves horribly embarrassed, as has been the Tory Party to some degree, by some of the fruit—shall I say, "by some of the harvest"?—that has sprung from their idea.
I think the Government are justified in saying that at least they have paid some degree of homage to the idea that, if we are go to through this extraordinary process, the individual elector should receive some kind of communication with his name on it. From what the noble Lord said, I am not sure how confident he is that each and every elector will receive an accurately addressed package containing this booklet. It will be interesting to see what turns up. Judging only from the extraordinary results achieved by firms which go in for this kind of operation and from the versions of our names (even if we have quite simple ones) that they produce from time to time, one is lead to expect that in the course of this delivery some people will receive communications addressed to people they have never met but who are, roughly speaking, intended to be themselves.
It would be churlish to divide the House and to break up the happy harmony which has prevailed between the Front Benches. The Government of the day, the Liberal Democrats—with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, championing his cause, quite rightly up to a point—and my noble friend on the Front Bench have all gone into cahoots and produced this extraordinary creature. Naturally they wish to cheer it on its way. I cannot resist the temptation of saying that I do not fall over myself with enthusiasm for the creature they have produced. I recognise that they are entitled to a degree of self-congratulation, but they must not expect me to join in.
4 P.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, three questions arising from the debate so far. I share two points with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. First, like him, I was not consulted by anyone; and, secondly, I have rarely in my life voted with greater conviction than when I voted "no" to there being a mayor for London. It still

815
to me seems a totally unnecessary post, which perhaps rather reflects on the individuals who have been seeking to run for it.
My three questions begin with the statement made by the Minister when he said that no material should refer to ally candidate standing for election to the assembly. I am not quite sure where we get to with that. It would mean, let us say, that a Labour candidate could not refer to Mr Norris but, presumably, a Labour candidate could refer to the policy of the Conservative Party. I understand that. One cannot refer to an individual but I should be very surprised if one could not refer to a party.
For example, what would happen if Mr Livingstone, having been thrown out of the Labour Party, founded something he called the "Livingstone Party" which, as an individual, he could well do? What would the position be if the name of his party happened to be his own name too? Would it then be illegal for any of his opponents to refer to the "Livingstone Party"? I think it is a rather important point that could inhibit criticism in his opponents' election addresses. We are entitled to know what the situation would be. It gives rise to a number of problems.
Secondly, I want to inquire about the position once the draft of an election address has been submitted. Presumably, all that would be necessary is for one copy in draft to be submitted to the returning officer for it subsequently to be printed. Of course, the draft would have had to be submitted to the Post Office first. It would be very unsatisfactory indeed if, once a submission had been put in to the returning officer, there was an opportunity for it subsequently to be withdrawn or amended, the particular candidate having seen what was in other candidates' election addresses and being able to alter his own to meet a particular point made. It really would be unreasonable if that were to happen.
I want to stress how important it is to maintain the confidentiality of an individual candidate's election address from the point of submission to the point when it goes finally to be printed. It would be very unfair indeed if one candidate or another were to know what was in his opponent's election address. I should like to know what would happen in that event. I cannot over-emphasise how important it is that returning officers and the Post Office treat these documents with the greatest confidentiality.
On that point, I notice a provision in the proposals before us. Paragraph 7(6)(a) of the new schedule states,
"make such typographical corrections to the proof as appear to him"—
that is the returning officer—
"to be appropriate".
I should have thought that it would have been wiser to have made those corrections after consultation with individual candidates. I can imagine nothing more infuriating than for a returning officer to change what is in the draft of an election address without consulting the candidate. All of us who have stood for elections of one kind or another can imagine how irritating it
816
would be to find that one's election address had been altered without consultation. The paragraph goes on to say that the returning officer should,
"proceed with the printing and distribution of the election booklet without further reference to the candidate".
I feel that there is a large hole there about which I would be quite unhappy.
My final point concerns the contribution of £10,000 towards the printing of the booklet. The Minister may recall that last week at Report stage I said that it would be totally unacceptable if a cash contribution were to be demanded towards the cost of postage. I hope I am right in assuming from what the Minister said and from what I read in the draft regulation that all that would have to be submitted are one or two pieces of paper constituting the draft of the address and that there would be no prior printing costs for the candidate before he put in his draft election address. I would be content with that situation. I am perfectly content with a £10,000 contribution towards the cost of printing because that could well be less than the cost to the individual candidate himself of printing all his own election addresses. I made that comment last week on the basis that the candidate had already paid for the printing of all his election addresses. I said that it would be totally wrong if a further contribution were demanded to cover part of the postage. I hope the Minister will tell me that I am correct in making that assumption.
I wish to make another point on the financial contribution. The Minister did not make clear the small print. If at the end of the day the cost of printing the booklet came to more than the £10,000 contribution covered, the candidates would be surcharged for the remainder. The Minister looks slightly befuddled by that, but I would refer him to paragraph 9(4)(a) and (b) on page 14 of the Marshalled List which specifically says that if there is to he any excess expenditure over the sum of all the £10,000 contributions, the candidates would be surcharged for the remainder. I find that slightly surprising as it seems to leave things wide open for a very extravagant printer.
Otherwise, I congratulate the Minister on listening to what your Lordships' House had to say. The Government have gone a very long way towards meeting our case.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, it seems to me that the principals who have taken part in these debates are very much to be congratulated on arriving at this compromise. Normally, I distrust very much the usual channels. I tend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who once described them as a conspiracy against Back-Benchers and Cross-Benchers. I feel rather ungracious in saying that following the informative speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, so close to me on my left. Nevertheless, on this occasion it seems to me entirely satisfactory that each side has found it possible to concede marginally and we have an outcome which, to my mind, is entirely satisfactory.

817
The principal reason is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, it vindicates democracy. Society, after all, is democratic in so far as the mass of its members can influence the decisions which affect them. That cannot be done unless they are informed as to the issues which will affect them. In this case, your Lordships have insisted that the information should be available to the electors who will be affected. That is the main lesson of these debates.
The second point, which relates to what we are to engage in tomorrow, is that this has been achieved in your Lordships' House. It was not even raised in the Chamber which originated this measure. It has been achieved in your Lordships' House and I cannot conceive that it would have been achieved in the other place. Perhaps I may add in relation to that point that the fact that a compromise has been achieved seems to owe something not only to the arguments on each side, though they have been cogent on the Opposition Benches, but also to the relaxed and genial attitude of Ministers in charge of the measure. To some extent that is adverted to by the Wakeham report. It is very important. It is not something which a constitutional academic will notice, but it is an important element in the way that the Wakeham report envisages your Lordships coming to acceptable decisions.
A third important point is that we have now vindicated without question the responsibility and right of your Lordships to challenge secondary legislation. That was a matter of expressed resolution of your Lordships' House in 1994. It was rather disturbing that in the debate on the matter just before Christmas the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, challenged that decision time and again, asserting that there was a convention that your Lordships would not vote against secondary legislation. We owe it very much to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill at an earlier stage when he expressly conceded that your Lordships have such a right. Indeed, your Lordships voted in vindication of such a right. Therefore, I trust that henceforth there will be no question but that your Lordships have power to examine, scrutinise and challenge secondary legislation.
That is not to say that every piece of secondary legislation will be challenged. On the contrary, at the time in the 1960s and 1970s when both parties voted against secondary legislation, it occurred only two or three times in each Session. I should think that, your Lordships' House having taken the attitude that it has in relation to this matter, it will be even less frequent in the future. I would surmise that government draftsmen and departments will be chary of misusing secondary legislation after your Lordships' House has vindicated its right to examine it critically. It is only likely to be exercised where the secondary legislation goes beyond the nuts and bolts of the primary legislation and goes beyond putting into practical effect what has clearly been "blue printed" in the primary legislation. This measure is a good example. It was a challenge, as we
818
have now recognised, to democracy. That is very much a circumstance where your Lordships can say. "Secondary legislation is being misused".
The last matter I would advert to is the question of vires. When the Minister was in charge of the Bill earlier, he quite rightly pointed out that what was envisaged in your Lordships' vote was ultra vires the Bill as it then stood. But it was not ultra vires the Bill as it could be refashioned at Report, we being then in Committee. That is what has happened. It could be done only while the Bill was current before your Lordships' House. But it is a very good example of the flexibility of your Lordships' procedures.
I end by congratulating all those concerned on the result to which we have come. It has a lesson for tomorrow as an example of what your Lordships' House can do and what I think the other place is unlikely to do.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, like others who have spoken, I welcome the results of the formal and informal discussions about this issue and welcome them for the procedural and perhaps constitutional reasons which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has just spelt out so eloquently. I welcome the result also because, like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I look forward to receiving this amusing booklet. Thanks to our efforts, it will not be a best seller because it will be free, but it may well be read by more people than the noble Lord thinks.
I want to state clearly that, unlike the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Jopling, I am an unreconstructed supporter of a directly elected mayor for this great city. Nothing that has happened in public and media debates over the past few weeks and months has put me off. On the contrary, it has all proved that this is obviously a very exciting position in which parties and individuals take an unusually strong interest, as do some voters; certainly the one who is speaking now.
Without wishing to delay proceedings—I believe that there is widespread agreement on the proposals before us—I should like to raise one question. I see in the schedule a reference to,
"any material referring to any candidate standing for election to the Assembly".
No one else has raised this particular question. A number of mayoral candidates have referred explicitly to persons whom they would choose as their deputies. Initially, the deputies are likely to be candidates for the assembly. As the proposal now stands, is it the intention to ban any reference to deputies as well as to any other candidates? Beyond that, naturally I strongly support the compromise which has been reached.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has spoken in this debate. He is among those who deserve our warmest thanks for what has happened. I have been listening to him on the subject of regulations for

819
12 years and have learnt a vast amount. His contribution shows the great virtue of being prepared in this House to play it long.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, sometimes reminds me of Augustus in Ruthless Rhymes:
"Whatever people say about my son,
He does enjoy his little hit of fun".
Fortunately, he enjoys it in such a way that the rest of us can, too. I listened with great pleasure to his speech. Like the noble Lord, we on these Benches collectively never wanted a mayor for London, but now that we have an election we intend to do it properly. It is a paradox that the only party which never wanted a London mayor is the only one to have made an unalloyed success of the job of selecting a candidate. Perhaps lessons can be learnt from that.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, is quite right that there are imperfections in the amendment as we see it. The amendment is the result of a real negotiation. Nobody got exactly what he wanted, as one should have expected. On the other hand, when one looks at a horse designed by a committee one asks two questions: first, can it walk? Secondly, can it carry the load to be placed upon it? I am quite confident that in this case the answer to both questions is "yes". All I need do is to thank very warmly everyone from all parties who has taken part in these negotiations and to say that their activities reflect credit on the House and democracy.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will allow me to speak before the Minister so that I may comment on the amendment that he has tabled and the points that he made. In my defence I say to my noble friend Lord Peyton that I give this proposal one-and-a-half cheers, but not much more than that. My granny told me that I should be thankful for small mercies, and that is what I am doing. These small mercies have come about because your Lordships have decided to exercise powers, which this Chamber has always had, in the new House in a way that certainly we on these Benches refrained from doing in the old House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, rightly reminded us that we have always had that power. I believe that he commended us to use it sparingly in the new House. I trust that we shall not be tempted to do more than that, but to an extent that depends on Her Majesty's Government listening to the signals which are sent to them.
In the discussions both the Government and the combined Liberal Democrat and Conservative sides started off a fair distance apart. The Government, in the person of the Chief Whip and the noble Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Whitty, listened to our concerns. They attempted to meet some of them and explained why in their view some of our demands could not be met. We are grateful to them and their officials for the part that they played. As usual, I am impressed by the fact that, when given a proper steer, in next to no time officials can produce pages and pages of amendments that can, I believe, work legally. I have some experience of the way that officials work.
820
In the interests of finding common ground in the discussions, we agreed early on to concentrate on the mayoral elections only. It was perfectly clear to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and me that we would not make any progress at all unless we did that. To begin with, there was a gulf between the Government who did not want any of this and ourselves who wanted a freepost for each candidate, in the same way as each candidate in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Europe and the other place has a freepost. While that remained my preferred solution, clearly it was not one to which the Government were prepared to listen.
However, the issue of the booklet arose. It started with a request to candidates to send in 200 words to be put into a collage, as it were. We have moved from that to an A5 booklet, which will be considerably more attractive, in which the candidates themselves, within the rules of the Post Office and the schedule, are able to produce what is called camera-ready copy. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in the discussions I learnt a good deal about direct mailing. In future I may not treat with such contempt the material that comes to me which I regard as junk mail and place in the wastepaper basket. I realise now that a good deal of effort goes into collating and producing it so that it can reach me. The booklet is important, and I am grateful for the concession by the Government that if there are fewer than 16 candidates it will have a front and back page. However, it will not be like that; it will have facing pages.
What cheered me most was that very early on we were able to move the Government towards the proposition that the freepost should be aimed at each elector rather than each household. It is probable that that move made us more willing to make progress on the other issues than we would otherwise have been. This afternoon your Lordships have again heard the arguments about the importance of each elector, especially in an urban area like London, receiving this material. Therefore, I am grateful to the Government for arriving at that decision.
Aside from the ever-present ghost of the Treasury, the Government seemed to be haunted by the thought that there would be lots of candidates, not just loose (or unloosed) cannons on the deck like Mr Ken Livingstone advertising their political wares, but also restaurateurs, services and others. On reflection, it occurred to me—to be fair, it was not mentioned—that perhaps the Government's real concern was that every "dot.com" business that wanted to establish itself might nominate itself for mayor and, therefore, have a freepost. I am not convinced that that is ever likely to happen.
If a considerable number of mayoral candidates come forward, even if they do not use the freepost, the Government should start all-party talks about how to prevent the serious business of an election degenerating into farce, with candidates from hither and yon having no real interest in the matter. Clearly, deposits, written support and the signatures of an increasing number of electors before a candidate is allowed to stand provide one way to deal with that.

821
However, I suspect that, with the rise of single issue pressure groups and the candidates who support them, for perfectly democratic reasons there will be an increase in candidates in elections at all levels in future. I do not believe that we can do anything about that; nor should we try to do so, because that is a legitimate activity. I regret that in future the Government intend to opt out of this issue by passing responsibility to the new authority to decide what, if any, freepost facilities will be made available. I also regret that, as my noble friend Lord Jopling mentioned, the mayoral candidate will not be allowed to mention the first-past-the-post candidate standing for the assembly. I never believed that we needed to think about the top-up because, from my experience of the Scottish scene, it is very much based on the party, with the exception of Mr Dennis Canavan. I remind the governing party that sometimes maverick independents whose parties have rigged elections against them can comfortably win elections. I do not expect that to happen: I expect Mr Norris to win, of course—before anyone rises and tries to be smart! However, I think that I should put that little warning to the Government about our experience in Scotland.
I understand the legal reasons, and I do not wish to go over them. But I want to ask one question on this issue. In his leaflet can a mayoral candidate draw attention to the fact that there are two other votes on that day: one for the assembly, and one for the top-up? I was unable to check at the weekend in Scotland what happened last time. My recollection is that in the leaflets for the first-past-the post and the top-up the parties played on the two votes—give two Tory, Labour, Liberal Democrat or SNP votes. The campaign was: do not separate your vote. Will that be legitimate? It may be technical but it is an important matter. The literature of the mayoral candidates is the only literature people will receive. For example, will Steve Norris and the assembly candidates be able to say, "Vote Conservative, and vote Conservative for the top-up", without naming the candidates? We should be grateful for advice on that point.
I welcome the delivery to every elector. I regret that it will not be an individual leaflet with every candidate responsible for his or her own. The Government have insisted on a joint publication, and on the production and timing. They will have to ensure that they do that. The Post Office will have to deliver the leaflets on time. I presume that it will be the responsibility of the official who delivers to the Post Office to ensure, perhaps better than political parties have managed, that all leaflets are delivered by the Post Office and that bundles are not discovered behind hedges some time after the election is over.
We have made progress. I think that noble Lords can be satisfied at the part your Lordships' House has played in bringing about some common sense on the issue. These elections are unique given the size of the electorate. I believe that we are correct to give the mayoral candidate the opportunity to have his or her case read by each elector. If the Government had
822
listened at Committee stage, when we rattled their cage, so to speak, we may not have been forced to vote against the secondary legislation.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I listened with interest to the contributions to the debate. I think the feeling of the House is that the Government have done the right thing: I may be wrong. There seems a happy coincidence of views from most corners of the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said that he would give the measure one and a half cheers. Those are more cheers than he usually gives measures which originate from the Government. I guess that we may take that as a compliment.
I particularly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. He indicates that I am a modest man. I apologise for that. I am very modest. I always have been. It is my nature.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I never said anything of the kind. All I said was that the noble Lord behaved modestly on this occasion.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is wonderfully put! However, I must take issue on one point. The noble Lord seemed to suggest that it was weariness on the Government's part which obliged us to make the concession. I have to contradict that and say that it is because we listened to all sides of the debate. We did not weary. From time to time we even found the debate exciting.
A number of points were raised in the discussion. I shall respond to them as best I can. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked whether mayoral candidates standing for assembly can refer to assembly candidates. The answer is no. The proposed new schedule rules out references to,
"any material referring to any candidate standing for election to the Assembly".
In this instance, "any candidate" would include himself or herself in the capacity of assembly candidate.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said that he would raise three points; he raised four or five. I do not chide him for that. It was fair. Referring to parties, the prohibition is on any candidate standing for election to the assembly. Reference can be made to parties and to other mayoral candidates. So there will not be a prohibition on candidates referring to parties in the way they address their election material.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. The regulations as drafted state that,
"an election address must not contain any material referring to any candidate standing for election to the Assembly".
As I read that, it would preclude a candidate from referring in his election address to his or her own suitability for the job. I should have thought that most unreasonable. An election address should allow a

823
candidate to refer to himself or herself. I understand the drafting, but surely it should preclude any material referring to any candidate other than himself or herself.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, mayoral candidates cannot address their suitability as assembly candidates. I hope that that clarifies the point. That is what we seek to achieve.
The noble Lord raised the issue of confidentiality. I hope that I can reassure him. There will not be an opportunity for candidates of one party, or independent candidates, to be able to see opponents' material submitted to the Greater London returning officer or to the Post Office. That would not be acceptable.
The noble Lord also asked what the £10,000 covered, and whether there would be a surcharge. The £10,000 is specifically a contribution towards the printing of the election booklet—the summary of election addresses. That is all it can be used for. Clearly any candidates will have to pay for the camera-ready artwork they provide, but that is their own cost. It is their own material. They are responsible for its origin. But at the point at which it is passed over to the GLRO, the cost of publication will come from that £10,000.
I hope that I can put the noble Lord's mind at rest on this point. There will not be a surcharge on top of the £10,000 if the sum of the costs is more than £10,000 collected together. However, there will be potential for a refund. The noble Lord may have misunderstood the wording under that part of the schedule. For instance, if, let us say, 30 candidates chipped in £10,000 each, it is possible that there might be a small surplus. That will be refunded pro rata. We consider that candidates are getting a pretty good deal from the arrangements that we propose.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, asked about typographical corrections to the proof. There will be corrections to the proof, as appear appropriate, only if the election agent of a candidate fails to check the proof of a candidate's address. They will be made at a time and place to be notified by the GLRO. There will have to be consultation between the GLRO and the candidate and/or his agent to ensure that typographical corrections are understood to be exactly that, and no more. If there is a problem, there will no doubt be careful consultation. We expect the provision to cover simple mis-spellings rather than changing the text fundamentally. I hope that that clarifies the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, raised a point about referring to deputies. Mayoral candidates will not be able to refer to assembly candidates, including those who may become deputy mayor. Therefore, that is a straight exclusion. No doubt in all the other material produced by candidates' parties and so forth there will be ample opportunity to mention running partners—but not in this leaflet. I hope that that is clear and tidies up the last point.
824
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion. I shall not go over the constitutional issues because they have been well rehearsed, but the contributions have been valuable.
I turn to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. There are difficulties, but probably any reference to the assembly elections will have to fall short of endorsing candidates. That will probably be the guiding rule. Clearly, it is not black and white. But, based on the drafting of the amendment, that is how it should work.
This has been a useful debate and we have focused on the issues. We have been reminded of the importance of the elections and the contribution which the booklet can make to democracy. It may well be that this is the most successful pilot run within the terms of the Representation of the People Bill. I have little doubt that the 5.1 million documents being circulated in the capital will help to excite the later stages of the election. I am also confident that they will improve the level of turn-out.
These are important elections and our concession or amendment to the legislation recognises their value. We believe that we have done the right thing, having given careful thought to all the issues. I am grateful to all those who have helped us along in that direction, including the experts; notably the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, whose contributions to the discussions were most helpful. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and I am content to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Pilot schemes]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 13, line 27, at end insert ("either—

(i) without modification, or

(ii) with such modifications as, after consulting the authority, he considers appropriate,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 8:
Page 13, line 37, leave out second ("and").
Page 13, line 38, at end insert—
("(c) the sending by candidates of election communications free of charge for postage.").
Page 13, line 39, leave out ("and such a scheme may, in particular,") and insert ("() Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this section, a scheme under this section may").
Page 13, line 41, at end insert—
("(b) for postal charges incurred in respect of the sending of candidates' election communications as mentioned in subsection (2)(c) to be paid by the authority concerned;

825
and where a scheme makes such provision as is mentioned in paragraph (b), the Secretary of State's order under subsection (1) may make provision for disapplyine section 75(1) of the 1983 Act (restriction on third party election expenditure) in relation to the payment of such charges by the authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 5 to 8.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the fast progress, but I should have liked the Minister to comment on the amendments. I presume that they have been made in order to allow for the Watford experiment with the postal vote. The Minister mentioned that in a letter to me, but it would be advantageous to have it on the record. I believe that there is to be a freepost. The amendments allow for that experiment to take place and make it clear on the face of the Bill that Watford pays.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I should have picked that up and I apologise to the noble Lord. We have had careful deliberations on the freepost issue and it begs the question of whether the use of the freepost facility is a sensible use of public funds. All things considered, we believe that to be right in relation to the Greater London Authority mayoral election. We reached that view after careful consideration and debate.
The freepost facility has never been made available in local elections. That was part of the original argument over the mayoral freepost. However, it seems to us to be sensible to allow local authorities, if they wish to use their own funds for such a purpose, to run pilot schemes involving a freepost. If it works for the GLA and for Watford, and if it can be demonstrated to have made a marked impact on turn-out, no doubt other local authorities may want to apply to run pilot schemes involving freepost.
As your Lordships will be aware, Watford Council has already indicated that it wants to do that at this year's May elections and that it intends to use its own resources for the purpose. We hope that in future other authorities may well take up that refrain.
We shall have to have a full evaluation. We discussed the conduct of that at earlier stages. No doubt that evaluation will focus on how much impact the freepost facility has had in raising the profile of the election and drawing it to people's attention. It could make a valuable impact. We shall await the assessment. This will be the first time it has happened in local authorities outside London and we shall carefully watch and monitor it. I suspect that it will have some impact, but as regards how much only the future can tell.
I am happy to move our amendments which regularise the situation. We look forward to seeing and studying the fruits of the Watford initiative.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Fookes Baroness Fookes moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 13, line 41, at end insert—
("() A scheme under this section may include the provision for the Presiding Officer at his discretion to ask for documentary proof of identification by one of the following—

(a) a polling card;

(b) a valid United Kingdom driving licence;

(c) a relevant social security benefit book;

(d) a National Health Service medical card;

(e) a certificate of verification as issued by the electoral registration officer,

or other such documentary evidence as may in the reasonable opinion of the Presiding Officer concerned constitute such evidence of the matters provided for within this subsection.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name. With it is linked the new clause which also stands in my name. I do not want to detain your Lordships for long as the subject matter of the amendments was thoroughly aired on a previous occasion. However, I return to the matter in the hope of persuading the Government of the wisdom of allowing for the identification of voters, at least in any pilot schemes of which they approve.
It is a weakness in the present set-up that a presiding officer has to take the word of the person coming in to vote that he or she is entitled so to do. Therefore, I have set down the fact that the presiding officer should be able to ask for proof of identity: a polling card, driving licence or any of the other documents listed. On this occasion, instead of making the measure wholly obligatory, I have suggested that it should be at the discretion of the presiding officer. That is the purpose of the amendment in relation to pilot schemes.
The new clause is intended to be a wider application and to allow the presiding officer, if he thinks fit, to ask for proof of identification in all cases. I do not know whether I shall fare better on this occasion, but I believe that the measure is important. Indeed, it will be even more important if new schemes provide for early voting, perhaps spread over several days or at a polling station other than the normal one.
I offer my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I raised the issue of the Plymouth pilot scheme which sought to include a requirement for the presiding officer to request identification by means of a polling card. He said that he would write to me and let me know the Government's views. He kept entirely to his word in very good time and I am delighted that the requirement will be permitted at least in that scheme. I hope that we shall have better success today. I beg to move.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I shall be brief because my noble friend has made the point most clearly. When in future elections the new provision for homeless people will be effective, it is important that the general public do not feel that there is a new opening for impersonation. That is all that my noble friend is trying to achieve in her amendments. I strongly support them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may also speak briefly to this amendment.

827
Undoubtedly, impersonation does take place. The problem is that we do not have much idea of the extent to which it occurs. We know that action has been taken in Northern Ireland to stop it happening, but I believe that perhaps it occurs more in Great Britain than we would like to believe. Certainly, in the constituency in which I live, there are frequent rumours that impersonation takes place on a scale which would be significant if it were a marginal constituency. However, as it is not, it probably does not affect the election outcome; but if it were a marginal constituency, it might.
Of course, the position will be made more serious if we move from the current way to new ways of voting; for example, early voting, where polling stations may be open for one, two or three days, or where a central polling station will be open for two or three days prior to the election and the usual local polling stations will be open thereafter. It will then become very important indeed to keep a record of who has voted.
If I may say so, it will be increasingly important to require identification, especially in urban areas. In many country areas, the polling clerks know jolly well who has come to vote. They may not know the voters personally but they know them by sight. I believe that impersonation would be extremely difficult throughout much of rural Scotland, England or Wales, but not too difficult in an urban area. If we move to a system which provides alternative polling stations—that is, where it is very much up to the individual on the day of the poll which station he attends—frankly, I believe that identification, as well as electronic communication between the stations, will be required.
Therefore, I believe that my noble friend has a point. Even if the Government do not accept my noble friend's amendment today, I believe that in the not too distant future we shall have to return to this issue and give the polling clerks or agents the right to ask for identification. As I explained, I do not believe that everyone will need to produce identification. In many cases, the polling clerks will know the person who has come to vote. However, when there is doubt, I do not believe that it will be sufficient to say simply, "Are you who you say you are?" The person will reply "Yes". He will not say "No" if he has come deliberately to impersonate. I believe that that question is no longer adequate.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to say briefly that on these Benches we cannot possibly support these amendments. The problem is that the presiding officer must exercise his discretion and one does not know on what basis that discretion is to be exercised. In practice, one can see only that the presiding officer is likely to require proof of eligibility to vote from those who look scruffy or shiftless or who in some other way attract the attention of the presiding officer as being doubtful. That is no possible basis for exercising a discretion and I can see no other possible basis for exercising a discretion of this kind.
828
Logically, it could be done fairly only by requiring everyone to produce evidence of identification. The consequences of that would be absolutely horrendous: the queues would last all day if evidence had to be produced. Of course, the people who were asked to produce evidence on the basis of a discretion might well be those who were unable to do so, simply because they had not realised that it would be required of them. They may be sent away. Unless they were voting very late, in theory they would have time to come back again with the necessary evidence. However, frankly, the chances are that they will not. In those circumstances, it seems to us that the amendment is unworkable and, if and in so far as it were applicable, likely to be unfair.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall try to be brief in dealing with the amendments. I said in Committee that I did not believe that there was a need to impose a general requirement for producing identification at polling stations; nor we do believe that we need to give the presiding officers discretionary powers to demand identification above and beyond the prescribed questions which, as things currently stand, they are allowed to ask a voter, and to insist on the production of a polling card. The Working Party on Electoral Procedures did not see a need to make a change of that kind. As was pointed out in Committee, the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place, which considered this issue at quite some length, made a positive recommendation against such a move. Accordingly, I do not believe that I can invite your Lordships to support Amendment No. 18.
As the noble Baroness is aware, the council of the City of Plymouth, which she represented with considerable distinction for many years in another place, has applied to run an early voting pilot scheme. As part of its application, it intends to require those who want to take advantage of the early voting facility to provide proof of identification. That is precisely because they may vote at a polling station other than the one in their neighbourhood. The other pilot schemes with early voting procedures established will be expected to run in a similar manner. I believe that that will provide us with an idea of the potential scope for abuse within the current system.
I believe that on this matter we have agreed across the Benches that we do not consider our system to be overly abused. Clearly, there are occasions when abuse is a problem and those come to light from time to time. However, I believe that the pilot schemes will enable us to test exactly how great the problem may or may not be. In its evaluation of the scheme, Plymouth City Council has been asked to look particularly at this aspect of the pilot and at the way it works. No doubt in the outcome of that evaluation we shall all be very interested to see whether there is any potential for abuse and whether voters have been turned away, to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Assuming that the Bill receives Royal Assent in time—I do not now see any great barriers to that—the pilot schemes will be able to go ahead in May on the

829
basis of the Bill as it is currently drafted. Therefore, I am not able to accept the noble Baroness's first amendment. I would argue that it is not necessary. I believe that if we let the pilots take their course, it will be proven that there is not the manifest abuse which some people suspect. In the light of that and of the fact that this issue will be examined under the pilot schemes, I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, although I feel somewhat disappointed, I am not at all surprised. Having been taught that half a loaf is better than none, I suppose that I should take the quarter-loaf provided by the Minister. In those circumstances, although with some reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 14, line 19, at end insert—
("or in encouraging voting at the elections in question or enabling voters to make informed decisions at those elections.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Revision of procedures in the light of pilot schemes]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 15, line 7, leave out ("relevant elections of any description") and insert ("local government elections in England and Wales (or any particular description of such elections)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the same time as moving Amendment No. 11, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 to 17, and 26. I believe that I can be brief in dealing with these amendments as we had lengthy discussions of the underlying policy issue both in Committee and on Report.
At the Report stage last week, I said that the Government had listened to the strong views expressed in your Lordships' House about the power to roll out pilot schemes and that we had paid particular attention to the views of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I said that, as a consequence, we would bring forward amendments to limit the extent of the roll-out power in Clause 11 to local elections only. These amendments give precise effect to that commitment.
As your Lordships are aware, another Bill (currently being considered in another place) will establish a role for the Electoral Commission in the instigation and roll-out of pilot schemes. Therefore, we feel that that, coupled with our amendment, should provide all the necessary safeguards in rolling out new initiatives. With those few words, I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, these amendments result from the Government's decision to accept the recommendations in the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I expressed the gratitude of these Benches for the Government's
830
decision to do that because it seemed to us a matter of considerable constitutional importance. We had that debate on the last occasion and I merely repeat my gratitude to the Government for accepting the point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I too welcome the amendments. As your Lordships made clear in Committee, it was felt that the Government should take on board the powerful recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. At that stage, the Government were rather reluctant to move but I suspect that the events in relation to the London mayoral election showed the Government that we were serious. I also like to think that those of their Members who were in the other place realised that your Lordships took the view that the Government should listen to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The Government have done that and I warmly welcome it. I only hope that that is a precedent for the future and that we shall no longer have to rattle the cage in Committee if the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee suggests that the Government have gone beyond what is reasonable.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their warm congratulations. I was grateful also on Report for assurances, with caveats of course, that because flexibility has been lost by putting Clause 11 on one side, they may feel minded to assist us if and when we bring forward legislation to have national roll-outs of some of the pilots which we have seen through successfully in local government and which have worked well. I am grateful to noble Lords for their support in these matters.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 17:
Page 15, line 10, leave out ("enactment)") and insert ("provision of an Act, including this Act)").
Page 15, line 11, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
("(2) An order under subsection (1)—

(a) may except from the operation of any of its provisions any local government area specified in the order; but

(b) subject to that, must make the same provision—

(i) in relation to local government elections, or

(ii) if it applies only to a particular description of such elections, in relation to elections of that description,

throughout England and Wales.").
Page 15, line 31, leave out (", or district electoral.").
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(2)").
Page 15, line 35, at end insert—
("() Rules made under section 36 of the 1983 Act (local elections in England and Wales) may make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with any provision made by an order under subsection (1).
() Nothing in this section shall be taken as prejudicing the generality of any power contained in any other Act to make subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978) with respect to elections of any description.").
Page 15, line 36, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Assistance with voting for persons with disabilities]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 17, line 4, after ("orally") insert ("or in writing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is almost identical to that moved on Report by my noble friend Lord Ashley. I pay tribute to him. He has fought many battles on behalf of the disabled and I am sure that he will chalk this up as another victory on what is already an extremely impressive roll of honour.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Bill extends the right to be assisted in voting by a companion from the blind to others with a physical disability which prevents them from voting unaided and those who are unable to read. People who wish to be assisted with voting by a companion are required to make an oral declaration to the presiding officer that they need or want such assistance.
On Report, my noble friend drew our attention to the problems that that may pose for the profoundly deaf who are able to communicate only by means of sign language. This amendment overcomes that by allowing declarations to be made in writing. So I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Ashley for focusing our attention on this problem. I am sure that as a consequence, many people will feel indebted to him.
This is an important amendment, small as it is, and we believe that it should make a significant contribution to providing a more inclusive voting system so that all feel that they can happily participate in elections, whether they be local, national or European. I beg to move.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I express warm appreciation to my noble friend. This amendment will help a number of profoundly deaf people who use sign language and who otherwise, without this amendment, may well have been disenfranchised.
I emphasise that the Minister's rejection of this amendment at the earlier stages was not due to an error of judgment. It was due entirely to a misunderstanding between us which has now been resolved. I am extremely grateful to him for his speedy response and for acting as quickly as he did. I thank him very much indeed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 20:
Before Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
("Miscellaneous
FREE DELIVERY OF ELECTION ADDRESSES AT GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY ELECTIONS
.—(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After section 17 there shall he inserted—
"Free delivery of election addresses.
17A.—(1) Each candidate at the first election of the Mayor shall be entitled (subject to and in accordance with the provisions of
832
Schedule 3A to this Act) to have an election address prepared on behalf of the candidate included in a booklet of election addresses—

(a) prepared by the Greater London returning officer; and

(b) sent by that officer, by post, to each elector in Greater London.

(2) In subsection (1) above "elector", in relation to the election mentioned in that subsection—

(a) means a person who is registered in the register of local government electors for an electoral area in Greater London on the last day for publication of notice of the election; and

(b) includes a person then shown in any such register as below voting age if (but only if) it appears from the register that he will be of voting age on the day fixed for the poll.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he considers appropriate for and in connection with enabling candidates—

(a) at ordinary elections other than the first such election, or

(b) at elections to fill vacancies in the office of Mayor or Assembly member,

to have their election addresses (within the meaning of the order) delivered, at the Authority's expense, by the Post Office or by any other means specified in the order.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above, an order under that subsection may make provision—

(a) for free delivery of election addresses to be available under the order only in the case of any specified description of election falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection or within section 2(7) above;

(b) for enabling the Authority to determine the descriptions of elections (if any) in the case of which free delivery of election addresses is to be so available;

(c) for regulating in any respect the form and manner in which free delivery of election addresses is to be so available;

(d) for restricting the number of separate mailings in respect of the free delivery of election addresses, whether—

(i) by limiting the number of separate election addresses by reference to any specified circumstances, or

(ii) by requiring the preparation of a single document incorporating all the election addresses to be delivered on behalf of candidates at a particular election, or otherwise;

(e) for imposing conditions which must be satisfied by any candidate or candidates seeking to avail themselves of free delivery of election addresses under the order;

(f) for authorising election addresses falling to be delivered under the order to be disseminated by such means (other than those by which they are to be so delivered) as may be specified;

(g) for securing that civil or criminal liability in respect of material contained in any election address falling to be delivered under the order (including any such liability arising in connection with any dissemination of the material in pursuance of paragraph (f) above) is incurred only by the candidate on behalf of whom it falls to be so delivered or his election agent.

(5) In subsection (4) above—
"free delivery of election addresses" means the delivery of election addresses, in accordance with an order under subsection (3) above, at the Authority's expense;
"specified" means specified in an order under subsection (3) above.
(6) Before making an order under subsection (3) above the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the Mayor and the London Assembly; and

(b) such other persons and bodies as he may determine to be appropriate.

(7) Schedule 3A (which makes provision supplementing subsection (1) above) shall have effect."
(3) In section 420(3) (orders under specified provisions to be subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure), before paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
"(za) section 17A(3) above,".
(4) The provisions set out in Schedule (Free delivery of election addresses at first GLA mayoral election: New Schedule 3A to the Greater London Authority Act 1999) shall be inserted as Schedule 3A to the Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I want to raise a drafting point on this amendment. I did not do it when the earlier group of amendments was dealt with because I did not wish to derogate from the warmth of welcome that was shown for the Government's compromise.
I ask your Lordships to look at the bottom of page 7 of the Marshalled List. Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause states:
"The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he considers appropriate for and in connection with enabling candidates … to have their election addresses … delivered, at the Authority's expense, by the Post Office or by any other means specified in the order".
I should have thought that nothing could be more general than that.
However, subsection (4) emphasises it by saying:
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above, an order under that subsection may make provision",
and it then goes on with paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). It goes on for practically the whole page.
I used to complain about that style of drafting during the last Parliament. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern used to say that it was not strictly necessary. That is a Lord Chancellor's way of saying it is not necessary. He would say that nevertheless, it may be useful in letting Parliament know the kind of circumstances in which the general order may be used. No doubt that is true but it is not the only way and it is the most expensive way.
The reasonable way would be for the Minister to explain to Parliament where he thinks the provision might be used. That is eminently the case here.
I ask your Lordships to look at paragraph (c) which states that it is,
"for regulating in any respect the form and manner in which free delivery of election addresses is to be so available".
Obviously, that gives a free discretion and in paragraph (d) it refers to "or otherwise".
When I used to complain during the previous Parliament, such particulars at their worst ran to paragraph (h). I suppose that as this is confined to (g), that is some improvement. But I should have thought that they were all unnecessary and, indeed, the very opening words of the subsection shows that to be so.
834
I do not expect the Minister to withdraw the words at this stage, but the Bill is going to another place with this amendment. I ask two things. First, why does he think that this page of particularity within a perfectly satisfactory generality, which is emphasised by the words,
"without prejudice to the generality",
is necessary? Secondly, will the matter be considered? I should like to know, as he is the Minister in charge of the Bill, why he believes that this enormous series of particularities, admittedly within the generality, is expensively to be put in the statute, printed and reprinted which is conducive to the continual expansion of the statute book.
I am glad that I have been speaking long enough to see the arrival of a brief, but I should be grateful for the Minister's immediate reaction. I should be even more grateful if he would say that the matter will be considered.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the Minister answers, I must say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has prompted a question, not so much about new subsection (4) but about subsection (1). I accept that this is a rather naughty question, but I cannot resist asking it. Each candidate is to have an election address prepared and included in a booklet of election addresses. Will they be restricted to 75 words?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if the noble Lord had been here earlier on, he probably would have followed that rather more than 75 words will be allowed; words and images together and no doubt logos too.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has given us a valuable lecture on how we might better construct the wording of our legislation. I am not a constitutional expert, but I rather fancy that the way in which legislative drafting is carried out means that rather than having to return to Hansard for the source of an explanation, there is a reliance in part on having something on the face of the legislation. Although the subsections involve a degree of repetition—and perhaps, in the noble and learned Lord's terms, some drafting sloppiness has crept in—that is their value; one does not have to refer constantly to Hansard, but if an explanation is to be found it is there on the face of the Bill.
The matter raised by the noble and learned Lord is obviously important. It is one which we shall continue to keep carefully under review, and the noble and learned Lord will no doubt continue to remind us to do so. It has prompted me to think that I probably need to consult some of the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to find out what his explanations were at the time when he enjoyed the challenges raised by the noble and learned Lord

835
himself in earlier debates. I trust that that explanation begins to pick up some of the points raised by the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Citation, construction, commencement and extent]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 18, line 38, at end insert—
(""modifications" includes additions, omissions and amendments (and "modify" has a corresponding meaning).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 18, line 39, after ("11") insert (", (Free delivery of election addresses at Greater London Authority elections)").
Page 18, line 39, after ("section") insert ("and Schedule (Free delivery of election addresses at first GLA mayoral election: New Schedule 3A to the Greater London Authority Act 1999)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 18, line 39, after ("section") insert ("and paragraph 6 of Schedule 5,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment. Your Lordships will recall that an amendment was passed in Committee to insert a provision—which can be found at page 44 line 8—to prohibit the publication of the results of exit polls until the final close of the poll. The fear which prompted the amendment was that, in an election taking place over more than one day, an exit poll published after the first day of voting might in some way influence how people voted in the subsequent day or days, or perhaps even put them off voting at all.
The amendment that was passed deals with such problems, I hope that the number of pilot schemes involving early voting will be run in this year's local elections. That amendment should clarify the issues with regard to the local elections and protect them. We therefore want the new exit poll provisions to come into effect as soon as possible and as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. This amendment provides for precisely that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27:
Page 19, line 10, leave out ("Section 10") and insert ("Sections 10 and 11").
Page 19, line 11, at end insert—
("() The amendments made by section (Free delivery of election addresses at Greater London Authority elections) have the same extent as the Greater London Authority Act 1999.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Registration: amendments of 1983 Act]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 28, line 43, leave out ("local government") and insert ("electoral")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 28 is a drafting amendment. Section 76(2) concerns the register to be used for the purposes of calculating election expenses. A local authority by-election by definition does not cover the whole of a local authority, so we are changing a reference to "local government area" to "electoral area". That is all that is involved or implied in any way by the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 29:
After Schedule 4, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
FREE DELIVERY OF ELECTION ADDRESSES AT FIRST GLA MAYORAL ELECTION: NEW SCHEDULE 3A TOTHE GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY ACT 1999
"SCHEDULE 3A
FREE DELIVERY OF ELECTION ADDRESSES AT FIRST ELECTION OF MAYOR
Interpretation
1. In this Schedule—

"the 1983 Act" means the Representation of the People Act 1983;

"candidate" means a person who stands nominated as a candidate at the election;

"the election" means the first election of the Mayor;

"election address" shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 2 below:

"election booklet" shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 6 below;

"the GLRO" means the Greater London returning officer;

"print" means print by whatever means (and "printer" shall be construed accordingly);

"the relevant provisions" means the provisions of section 17A(1) of this Act and this Schedule.

Election addresses
2. For the purposes of the relevant provisions an election address, in relation to a candidate, is a statement prepared by the candidate's election agent which complies with the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4.
Contents of election addresses
3.—(1) An election address must contain matter relating to the election only.
(2) In particular, an election address must not contain—

(a) any advertising material (other than material promoting the candidate as a candidate at the election);

(b) any other material appearing to be included with a view to commercial gain; or

(c) any material referring to any candidate standing for election to the Assembly.

(3) An election address may include a representation of the registered emblem, or (as the case may be) one of the registered emblems, of a registered political party if the address is prepared on behalf of an authorised party candidate.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3) above "authorised party candidate", in relation to a registered political party, means a candidate who has been authorised to use the emblem in question by a certificate—

(a) issued by or on behalf of the registered nominating officer of the party, and

(b) received by the GLRO before the last time for the delivery of nomination papers for the election.

(5) An election address must—

(a) contain a statement to the effect that it has been prepared by the candidate's election agent; and

(b) give the name and address of the election agent.

Form of election addresses
4.—(1) Subject to any requirements imposed by or under this paragraph. the format of a candidate's election address may be determined by the candidate (and. in particular. may consist of a combination of words, pictures and artwork).
(2) An election address must be printed on not more than two sides of A5 paper; but if such an address is printed on two sides of such paper—

(a) it must, when submitted to the GLRO for inclusion in the election booklet, be accompanied by a second version printed on a single side of such paper; and

(b) if the total number of candidates from whom election addresses have been accepted by the GLRO by the last time for the delivery of nomination papers for the election exceeds 15. the version to be included in the election booklet shall be the second version.

(3) An election address must—

(a) comply with such requirements as to typographical layout, margins and the use of colour as the GLRO may determine; and

(b) comply with such other requirements as he may determine with a view to facilitating its reproduction as a page or pages of the election booklet.

(4) An election address must. when submitted to the GLRO for inclusion in the election booklet, be accompanied—

(a) where the address is to contain a photograph of the candidate, by two identical copies of the photograph, of which one is signed on the back by the candidate; and

(b) in any case, by such copies of anything contained in the address as the GLRO may reasonably require in connection with the reproduction of the address.

Approval of election addresses by Post Office
5.—(1) Before an election address is submitted to the GLRO for inclusion in the election booklet a draft of the address must have been—

(a) submitted by the candidate to the Post Office, and

(b) approved by the Post Office as complying with the relevant Post Office regulations.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(b) above "the relevant Post Office regulations" means the provisions of the Post Office regulations under section 91 of the 1983 Act as to the contents of election communications, other than the provisions of those regulations—

(a) authorising the sending of different material to different groups, or

(b) requiring the name of the printer and publisher to appear on election literature.

(3) Without prejudice to the operation of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, the Post Office shall not approve an election address if. in their opinion, the address does not comply with the provisions of paragraph 3(1) and (2) above.
The election booklet
6.—(1) For the purposes of this Schedule the election booklet is a document prepared by the GLRO which contains the election addresses of all candidates who—

(a) desire their election addresses to be included in the booklet, and

(b) have submitted—

(i) those addresses, and

(ii) any additional material required under paragraph 4(4) above,

to the GLRO by such date as he may determine.
(2) If—

(a) it appears to the GLRO that any of the requirements of paragraphs 3(3) to (5), 4 and 5(1) above has not been complied with in relation to an election address, or

(b) a candidate fails to make the payment required by paragraph 9 below in respect of an election address,

the GLRO shall decline to include the address in the election booklet.
Form of election booklet
7.—(1) The order in which candidates' election addresses appear in the election booklet shall be determined alphabetically by reference to the candidates' surnames.
(2) The election booklet may include. in addition to candidates' election addresses. a statement by the GLRO—

(a) explaining the nature and purpose of the election booklet;

(b) listing. in alphabetical order, the names of all the candidates at the election (whether or not their election addresses are included in the booklet); and

(c) giving the date of the election and such other information about it as the GLRO may determine.

(3) The election booklet must—

(a) contain a statement that it has been published by the GLRO; and

(b) give the name and address of the GLRO and those of the printer of the booklet.

(4) Subject to sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) above. the form of the election booklet shall be determined by the GLRO.
(5) The election agent of each candidate whose election address has been accepted by the GLRO for inclusion in the booklet shall be given an opportunity to attend at a time and place notified to him by the GLRO in order to check, and submit to the GLRO typographical corrections to, the proof of the candidate's address.
(6) If the election agent of any such candidate fails to avail himself of that opportunity, the GLRO may—

(a) make such typographical corrections to the proof as appear to him to he appropriate; and

(b) proceed with the printing and distribution of the election booklet without further reference to the candidate or his election agent (and without incurring any liability for any errors in the candidate's address).

(7) No person other than—

(a) the candidate by or on whose behalf an election address included in the election booklet was prepared, or

(b) the candidate's election agent,

shall incur any civil or criminal liability in respect of the publication of that address in the election booklet or its dissemination in accordance with paragraph 8 below.
Distribution of election booklet
8.—(1) Copies of the election booklet shall be delivered by the GLRO to the Post Office, in envelopes addressed to individual electors falling within section 17A(1)(b) of this Act, at such time as the GLRO may determine.
(2) The GLRO may disseminate the contents of the election booklet by such other means as he may determine.
Contributions by candidates towards costs of printing
9.—(1) Each candidate by whom an election address is submitted to the GLRO for inclusion in the election booklet shall pay the sum of £10,000 to the GLRO as a contribution towards the expenses incurred by him in respect of the printing of the election booklet.
(2) The payment required by sub-paragraph (1) above shall he made at such time, and in such manner, as the GLRO may determine.
(3) A candidate shall be entitled to a full refund of any such payment if, but only if, the candidate has given notice of withdrawal of his candidature before the last time for the withdrawal of candidates.
(4) If the total amount of the payments made by candidates under this paragraph exceeds the total amount of the expenses incurred by the GLRO in respect of the printing of the election booklet, the GLRO shall—

(a) divide the amount of the excess between the candidates in equal shares, and

(b) send to each candidate a payment in respect of his share.

Payments by Secretary of State
10. Except so far as they are met by payments under paragraph 9 above, the expenses incurred by the GLRO in consequence of the relevant provisions shall be met by the Secretary of State.
Candidates' election expenses
11.—(1) The amount of any payment made by a candidate under paragraph 9 above (or, if sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph applies, the net amount of any such payment after deducting the payment under that sub-paragraph) shall be taken, for the purposes of Part II of the 1983 Act (the election campaign), to be an amount of election expenses incurred by the candidate in relation to the election.
(2) Nothing in section 75(1) of the 1983 Act (restriction on third party election expenditure) shall be taken to apply, in relation to any candidate, to any expenses incurred by the GLRO in consequence of the relevant provisions."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry again to trouble the Minister with a drafting point, but it is somewhat the same. At the bottom of page 10 of the Marshalled List it is stated,
"An election address must contain matter relating to the election only".
That is reasonable enough. Why then do we need the phrase, "in particular", in subparagraph (2)? I refer especially to,
"(a) any advertising material (other than material promoting the candidate as a candidate at the election)".
Is that not clearly covered by subparagraph (1)? It is the same with the phrase "commercial gain" referred to in paragraph (b). Paragraph (c) is more questionable. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, I believe. It refers to,
"any material referring to any candidate standing for election to the Assembly".
I presume that that means any other candidate, but it does not say so. Will the Minister consider that point at any rate?
In the three general elections in which I stood, I never found it necessary to refer at all to my opponent. It is entirely laudable that this part of the Bill precludes the election addresses from being used in a slanging match. But a slanging match can be verbal. Why, then, should it be excluded from the election address? It is true that there is a Latin phrase which says that the written word
840
remains and perhaps it is rather more dangerous, but I should have thought that we could well have got rid of those seven lines as a beginning to pruning the statute book.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the purpose of these lines in the schedule is to be more precise about the nature of abuse that we attempt to circumscribe and rule out. This follows logically from paragraph 3(1) and adds further explanation that an election address should not be used to advertise or for material gain relating to commercial activity. Subparagraph (2)(c) refers to an earlier discussion and precludes the mayoral candidate from referring to himself or herself if he or she is standing also as an assembly candidate or to other assembly candidates. This links to an issue that we discussed at some length earlier. I hope that explanation clarifies the issues raised by the noble Lord. I thank him for raising the matter.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord was courteous enough to say that he would consider the point I raised on an earlier amendment. Will he do so also on this amendment, and will he be kind enough to write to me with the result of his consideration?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I want to be more helpful to the noble and learned Lord because he raises important drafting issues. However, it needs to be understood that those relate to ruling out the abuse about which we were so concerned in our earlier discussions, not just this afternoon but in relation to the orders and during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill.
We believe that we have tightened up the provisions so that we can reasonably expect abuse not to take place through the freepost facility. That is exactly what the schedules are all about. Of course, we keep drafting under careful consideration at all stages of the legislation and it would be wrong to say that we shall not check the drafting carefully. However, this provision is directed at the issue of abuse: it is an attempt to tie it down precisely.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Greater London Authority Elections (Expenses) Order 2000
5.21p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have debated this matter before. The matter of the free mailshot has been disposed of and I hope we can deal briefly with the matter in question in relation to this order.
The draft order prescribes the maximum amounts for the election expenses of candidates, their agents and third parties in elections for mayor of London and the London assembly. In my opinion the draft order is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The draft order sets out three separate limits: for mayoral candidates, assembly constituency candidates, and for parties and independent candidates contesting the London-wide list, reflecting the GLA's unique voting systems. Those limits are £420,000 per mayoral candidate; £35,000 per candidate contesting an assembly constituency; and £330,000 per party or independent candidate contesting the London-wide list.
As I said, we consulted political parties on our proposals in December 1999. We listened carefully to the points they raised about the level of the limits and, in the light of that consultation, reduced significantly the mayoral and London-wide list limits from the levels that we originally proposed—namely, £990,000 and £495,000 respectively—because consultees considered them too high and likely to disadvantage smaller parties. The limits provide for a more level playing field for candidates while allowing them the freedom to put their message across to the electorate.
The limits can be broadly compared to expenses limits in other relevant regimes. The expenses limits for mayoral candidates and for parties and independent candidates contesting the London-wide list are broadly derived from the figure of £30,000 per parliamentary constituency used in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which is presently before another place, as the building block for calculating the national spending limits for political parties. The assembly constituency limit is broadly equivalent to the sum of parliamentary constituency limits within an assembly constituency area. The limits are enough to enable candidates and parties to fight effective campaigns at either the London-wide or constituency level, while not allowing their spending to become unacceptably high.
When the order comes into force, GLA candidates and parties contesting the London-wide list will not be permitted to spend more than the relevant prescribed limit in respect of their election expenses. Election expenses are defined in the Representation of the People Act 1983 as,
"whether before, during or after an election, on account of or in respect of the conduct and management of the election".
Spending before 14th December 1999—the date when the relevant provisions in the GLA Act were commenced—is not caught by the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and hence would not, in our view, count toward the limit. I want to take this opportunity to clarify that a mayoral candidate's contribution of up to £10,000 towards the cost of
842
printing the booklet referred to in our earlier discussion will count as an election expense on the part of that candidate.
Noble Lords may wonder whether, in the light of the decision to produce the booklet, explained so eloquently and modestly earlier today by my noble friend Lord Bassam, to the appreciation of the House, we should perhaps adjust downwards the election expenses limits for mayoral candidates. After all, their literature will be delivered to every elector at a pretty cheap rate. However, on balance I believe that it could be unfair to do so, given that we are where we are. Candidates have known about our proposed expenses levels for some time. Their spending since 14th December—the date when the relevant sections of the GLA Act were commenced—would count against those limits. We could be accused, with some justice, of moving the goalposts if we altered them now. I believe it is right to leave them for this election and look again at the issue before the next Greater London elections.
Article 2 of the order prescribes the maximum expenditure which a person other than a candidate, his agent or persons authorised by the agent—that is, a third party—may incur at such elections. The limits are set at £25,000 per third party supporting or opposing mayoral candidates; £25,000 per third party supporting or opposing London-wide list candidates, including independents; and £1,800 per third party supporting or opposing an assembly constituency candidate.
Some comment has been made on those limits and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee drew attention to them. The limits are derived from the formula we intend to bring forward by amendment to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill to limit third-party spending in local elections. Concern has been expressed that the limits are too high. They are indeed high compared with the current £5 limit set out in the Representation of the People Act 1983, but the main reason for drawing those levels is that they are justified; and they justify my earlier contention that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. They are justified also in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Bowman case. The court ruled that the £5 limit constituted an unjustifiable restriction on freedom of expression.
With that explanation, I commend the order to the House. I trust that we shall have a constructive debate about the matters that are set out in it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, until half an hour ago the Minister probably thought that, apart from a bit of justified teasing on the subject of the candidates for mayor of London, and on election addresses being posted free, this order would be plain sailing. However, as the Minister almost said, there is unfinished business—indeed, business previously

843
unmentioned in your Lordships' House—to which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (not, with respect, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee) on which I have the honour to serve, drew attention in its 10th report. It is most unusual for the committee to draw the attention of both Houses to matters incorporated in an affirmative instrument. Indeed, I cannot recall it happening during the time that I have served on that body.
The subject of my attention is embodied in Article 2 of the order and relates to what are known as third parties' expenses. As Article 2 helpfully explains, those may by law be,
"incurred by a person other than a candidate, agent. or person authorised by an agent".
and the latter are covered by not ungenerous monetary limits of their own. Were this order not to be passed tonight, the third-party limit would remain at £5, as the Minister said. I accept that that amount is a little mean in this day and age, hearing in mind that the original purpose was, for example, to buy canvassers a round of drinks or some buns for a picnic while canvassing. I have no objection to the limit being raised to a reasonable figure. However, as the Joint Committee pointed out, it is a mega leap from £5 to the mammoth amount of £25,000 embodied in Regulation 2 in connection with the mayoral election. The amount would not be quite so large in relation to an election of a constituency or a member of the London Assembly, but, nonetheless, £1,800 and £25,000 respectively are significant amounts, especially when added to the candidates' and agents' expenses that are referred to in Regulation 3 for the same series of elections.
I bend over backwards not to be a conspiracy theorist, but what are the Government up to? In my experience, the members of the Joint Committee never take it into their own heads to report on orders; they always ask the relevant government department a question or two first. The Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on this occasion was asked the same question and the reasoned reply is printed in the tenth report. I will summarise those reasons.
Firstly, the law needed changing because of the Bowman case, which held that the £5 limit violated Article 10 of the ECHR Convention as it was a restriction on the freedom of expression. This is all well and good, but noble Lords will probably agree that an increase from £5 to £25,000 was somewhat excessive insurance against being found guilty again by the court for the same reason.
Secondly, the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its fifth report recommended a limit on third-party expenditure at parliamentary elections of £500. Obviously, we are not dealing here with parliamentary elections but I would have been happy to go along with that limit for the London elections; but the Government have gone into overkill again.
The last reason is the most obvious reason. The Minister said that the £5 would be replaced by new limits on third-party spending if the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which is currently at
844
Committee stage in another place, is enacted. We are being asked to increase the London limits exponentially, on the basis of law that is not yet on the statute book, and which, in that respect at least, may never get there. It is no use the Department saying that the proposed national limit of £739,000 for expenditure by third parties in England is some 10 times the maximum expenditure limit for third parties during the Greater London Authority elections. None of these reasons appear to hold water, or the bath is not big enough to hold this enormous increase.
The Minister has the ability to pacify me, if he will be good enough to do so. Can he explain who the third parties are likely to be? Would an advocate of Mr Livingstone or Screaming Lord Sutch, were he still alive—both of whom are unlikely to have agents—qualify? Would an ordinary canvasser qualify? Can a candidate have more than one such supporter? If that is the case, the total amount for the London mayor would rapidly approach half a million pounds, which is a large amount of money that would have to be found from somewhere.
How is this extra money to be policed? Practically anyone could tell if I had spent over £5; it is much more difficult to show that I have spent £1,800 or £25,000.
Can the Minister give me confidence that the Government are not conjuring up yet another rod for their devolutionary back?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but I should like to intervene briefly. I am a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and I was a member at the time when the committee recommended a substantial increase in the limit on third-party spending. I think I should explain how we arrived at that recommendation and how the figure came to be calculated.
The problem was that the United Kingdom lost the Bowman case before the European Court of Human Rights, in which Mrs Bowman had spent money on circulars to the electors of the constituency of Halifax, to explain to them on behalf of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child the views of the various candidates on abortion. Clearly, this was directed against the sitting Member of Parliament, Alice Mahon.
The European Court held that a limit of £5, which effectively prevented any circulation of material at all, was unreasonable. It was accepted therefore that the United Kingdom had to change its laws to recognise that third parties—that is, those who are not supporting a particular candidate but who are raising particular issues—must be allowed a reasonable sum of money to make their case to the electors.
The figure that we thought was appropriate for parliamentary constituencies was £500, that being approximately the cost of printing a leaflet which could then be distributed by volunteers around the constituency. As an extension to that, we applied broadly a figure of 5 per cent for third parties at all elections: that for the national elections, where we

845
proposed a limit of £20 million, came to a figure of £1 million; and third-party campaigns—for example, the campaign by UNISON before the last election in favour of the minimum wage. We thought that 5 per cent was broadly appropriate, and the figures for third-party spending in the London elections are not significantly out of line with that proposal from the committee on Standards in Public Life. The members of the committee have not had an opportunity to consider these proposals, but they are in line with our views on election procedures generally.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The noble Lord is correct in saying that that was the reference. On the other hand, I can correct the noble Lord: if we do not pass a spending limit today, there will be no spending limit in relation to the GLA, because the Act does not apply that limit but requires a different limit to be substituted by order: if we do not substitute an order, there is no limit.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has helpfully set out the background to the decision made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I can understand the reasons for the hesitation and the indication that third parties should not intervene to this degree in elections. However, it is considerably less than proportionate to the proposal by the Committee on Standards in Public Life for £500 per constituency. There are 74 constituencies in the Greater London area, and therefore that would be a higher figure. Likewise, the £25,000 maximum relates to 5 million electors. We have looked into this matter at great length: to print a single sheet for 5 million electors would cost at least £60,000. We have to bear in mind, in that context, that it does not seem to be an unreasonably restrictive limit on third party interventions, which for the most part will probably be single-issue campaigns or single interest group campaigns. Given the Bowman judgment, we feel that we need to put a realistic figure into this delegated legislation to meet the concerns that have been expressed.
I hope that, with that explanation, your Lordships will feel able to agree the order.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask, before the Minister sits down, whether this is only directed at campaigning leaflets or whether other people can take advantage of these large amounts of money.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure to what "other people" the noble Lord refers. These are leaflets paid for by third parties; there is no public expenditure involved. It is a question of expenditure up to £25,000. I agree that an enforcement issue arises, but an enforcement issue in relation to candidate's expenditure arises also. That could well be addressed by similar means.
846
The third parties may be single-issue groups, small businesses, campaign groups or people interested in any individual issue. If the question relates to whether it is a leaflet campaign material, in a physical sense, or whether it is activity, then the provision applies to everything. It is £25,000 worth of intervention in the campaign.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, sits down, is it correct that the position will be that anybody who spends money in support of a specific candidate without the authority of the agent will be committing an offence? There is no possibility, therefore, of third-party spending being used to support a campaign in favour of a specific candidate; it can only be used by single-issue groups or others raising specific subjects rather than those supporting specific candidates.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes, in general terms. As in the example which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spelt out of the Bowman case, there are implications as to which candidate one is for and which candidate one is against.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Limited Liability Partnerships Bill [H.L.]
5.42 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Limited liability partnerships]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 20, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) The following provisions of the Partnership Act 1890 shall apply to limited liability partnerships—

(a) section 19,

(b) section 24,

(c) section 25,

(d) section 28,

(e) section 29,

(f) section 30,

(g) section 32,

(h) section 35.

(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), the sections of the Partnership Act 1890 mentioned in that subsection shall apply as if—

(a) references to a firm or partnership were references to a limited liability partnership.

(b) references to a partner were references to a member of a limited liability partnership, and

(c) references to the dissolution of a partnership were references to the winding-up of a limited liability partnership.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid I am doing rather a lot of duty this afternoon and your Lordships will have to hear rather more of me than might have been wished.
I will need to take a few moments in discussing Amendment No. 1. That will at least make it unnecessary for me to speak at any length at any later

847
stage of this debate. Amendment No. 1 raises an issue discussed at some length at both Second Reading and in Committee; that is, what is the nature of a limited liability partnership?
We on these Benches believe that a partnership is a simple, cheap and effective way of carrying on business. We also believe—though I do not speak for my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury on this point—that it should be possible for partners to obtain the benefits of limited liability and avoid joint and several liability. We believe that a limited liability partnership should be just that; that is, a partnership with limited liability. Statute and common law rules should apply to limited liability partnerships so long as they are not inconsistent with limited liability and with the legal personality of an LLP.
That appears to have been the original view of the Government, because the first draft of the Bill provided that, subject to the terms of any agreement between them, the mutual rights and duties of the members of an LLP should be governed by the rules and principles of partnership law. I paraphrase the actual terms of the draft. By the time the Bill was published, that provision had been omitted.
In the debates at Second Reading and in Committee, it appeared that the Government were moving away from the concept of an LLP as a partnership with limited liability and were seeing it instead as what might be called a cheap and cheerful kind of corporate body with no real links with partnership law. That was most clearly expressed by the Minister in the Committee stage debate on 24th January at col. 1353, where he said that the Government's objective was to create a new entity,
"which falls under company law as far as possible and changes company law as little as possible except in respect of taxation. It falls under partnership law as little as possible".
That worried us considerably, because we felt that the Government were throwing out the virtues of partnership law though it was unnecessary to do so in order to achieve the principal objective of obtaining limited liability. In Committee, therefore, I tabled, in the names of myself and my colleagues, an amendment in general terms which brought in the rules and principles of partnership law on the lines of the Government's original proposals in the Bill's first draft.
This time, we have produced a rather more detailed amendment which means that the members of an LLP continue to be bound by the statutory rules in the Partnership Act 1890, so far as is consistent with limited liability and the legal personality of the LLP, and subject to any agreement between the members. This amendment should be read with Amendment No. 8, which preserves the duty of good faith between the members. That is the most important of the common law rules governing partnerships. Amendment No. 8 will be spoken to in due course by my noble friend Lord Phillips.
Before going into detail, I should say that in February of this year the Government published a consultation paper about regulatory default
848
provisions governing the relationship between members of LLPs. "Default provisions" means the provisions which apply if the agreement between the members does not exclude or alter them. I found the consultation document helpful. and indeed encouraging, because it suggests that the Government are intending to use their powers under Clause 14(c) of the Bill to bring back partnership principles to a considerable extent. The dispute therefore to some extent boils down to an argument as to whether the default provision should be on the face of the Bill or in regulations.
We have a clear preference for the default provisions being on the face of the Bill. The usual argument with regulations is the need for flexibility and quick action. But the statutory principles of partnership law have been established for 110 years, during which time they have seen little change and there has been little disagreement with the way in which they are stated. There is no reason why more flexibility or a sudden change is needed now. We therefore believe that these default provisions should be on the face of the Bill because they have been proved to work for more than a century and because they lay down what we see as the essential nature of LLPs as partnerships with limited liability.
Perhaps I may turn to this in a little more detail. The key section in the Partnership Act is Section 24. That contains a number of basic rules of the relationship between partners in a partnership. Those rules include the equal share of all partners in the capital and profits of the firm in the absence of any decision to the contrary; the right of all members to take part in the management of the firm; the fact that consent of all members of the partnership is needed for the introduction of a new member; the fact that ordinary business decisions are to be taken by the majority of the partners but no change in the nature of the business can be made without the consent of all partners; and again, that all partners are to have a right of access to the books of the partnership.
The Government, in their consultation paper, indicated their intention to bring back all of Section 24 for LLPs except for two minor provisions which I have no wish to see returning. They also propose to bring back Section 25, which provides that there shall be no expulsion of members unless the agreement so provides, and a modified version of Section 26, which enables a member to retire on notice to other members if the agreement does not provide otherwise. The Government are now proposing, by way of Amendment No. 5, to put this particular provision on the face of the Bill and not in regulations. We welcome that.
The paper also raises a question for discussion without indicating its own preference; namely, whether Sections 29 and 30 of the Partnership Act 1890 should be brought back. Section 29 requires partners to account to their firms for any benefit derived by them from the use of partnership property, the partnership name, or a business connection of the partnership without the consent of other partners. Section 30 requires partners to account to their firms

849
for profits from any competing business carried on by them without the consent of the other partners. We strongly believe that both of these provisions should apply to LLPs in the same way as they now apply to partnerships.
I have to say that the consultation paper was doubtful about the need for a general duty of good faith. However, I certainly believe that such a duty is needed, although I shall leave it to my noble friend to speak on that issue.
As I see it, of the statutory provisions involved, the only remaining issue is the failure of the Bill to include any provision to replace Section 35 of the Partnership Act. Section 35 gives powers to the court to dissolve a partnership on various grounds, including the incapacity of a member to carry out his or her partnership obligations, or to dissolve a partnership because of various kinds of misconduct by a member other than the member who is seeking the dissolution.
Limited liability partnerships are basically a structure for business where it is intended that all the members shall be involved in the work. I believe that the Bill needs a formal provision to cover a situation where one member becomes permanently incapacitated or is guilty of serious misconduct in the management of the business. In substantial LLPs, undoubtedly the members' agreement will cover that kind of situation. However, there is a need for a default power to cover small LLPs where a formal agreement and proper advice on the terms which ought to go into a formal agreement are much less likely to be in place. It is essential to provide something of that kind for a body where all the members are normally working members.
The consultation paper considers, although without much enthusiasm, the possibility of introducing into LLPs something along the lines of Section 459 of the Companies Act 1985 which gives a minority shareholder the power to go to the court for various remedies, including the compulsory buy-out of his or her own shares if the business is being carried on in a manner unfairly prejudicial to him or her. I hope that the consultation will come to the conclusion that something of that kind is needed in the case of LLPs because I believe that it is required, although possibly in a simplified form. That would avoid the problems of time and cost that have been thrown up by Section 459. However, I believe that we also need something along the lines of Section 35 of the Partnership Act—not in an identical form because here I believe that we are less likely to be looking at dissolution than the continuation of the LLP on the basis of buying out a member who is incapacitated.
I believe that something of this kind should be included, as well as an extension of Section 459. Although in general I find the Government's position much more acceptable than it was previously, I hope that they will now be able to consider taking action along these lines. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in rising to speak to this amendment, first, I thank the Minister for
850
providing me with a marked-up copy of the government amendments together with an explanatory note. Perhaps I may also thank all noble Lords who have kindly written to me and copied to me correspondence concerning a number of issues following the Committee stage of the Bill.
A comparison of the Bill in its form at Second Reading with the Bill that we are considering this evening confirms that we have made considerable progress. However, the consultation paper, Regulatory Default Provisions Governing the Relationship Between Members, dated February 2000, clearly illustrates the challenge of endeavouring to introduce a new vehicle—a new business entity—which, in the words of the Minister,
"combines the best of both worlds".
is "an enormous privilege" and, at the same time, recognises the rights of third parties.
Taking this consultation paper together with the correspondence of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, dated 2nd and 3rd March 2000 and addressed to the Minister, we on these Benches remain concerned as to how the rights of third parties will be protected. We are concerned in particular, in the event of a conflict, with how the potential responsibility of a member of an LLP would be apportioned—I shall quote the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith—
"in order to split out liability of the members for his own acts as opposed to the liability of others".
Surely that goes to the heart of this business entity.
Turning to Amendment No. 1, I recall expressing concern in the debate on Second Reading as regards Clause 1(4) in so far as, on the face of the Bill, no reference is made to issues which are central to partnership law, something one might have expected when discussing a new vehicle called a "limited liability partnership". Indeed, there is no express reference to the limits of liability. However, I also recall that the Minister's response to the concern when it was raised in Committee made it quite clear that, although the taxation of LLPs will be on the partnerships analogy, all other aspects of the LLP will be on the companies analogy. It is now clear that an LLP will be quite different from a partnership and that those areas of partnership law which govern the mutual rights and duties of the members, including key provisions of the Partnership Act concerning dissolution, joint and several liability and relations with third parties, will not apply to LLPs.
Although to some extent I am reassured by Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill, assuming that regulations under Clause 14(c) will contain a number of default provisions modelled on Section 24 of the Partnership Act 1890, I have considerable sympathy with the amendment. It expressly covers a number of key issues, including dissolution either by members or by the court; the accountability of partners for private profits; the duty of a partner not to compete with the business of which he is a partner; and the disclosure of accounts and information as between partners and

851
their legal representatives. For that reason, I look forward to the Minister's response to the proposed amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness for the way in which they have moved and spoken to the amendment. From the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, it is clear that I shall need to use the long version of my response rather than the short version. However, I make no complaint about that.
In the debates at Second Reading and in Committee, I made it clear that, although the Bill will introduce a new business entity, we are not seeking to rewrite company law or partnership law. We seek to make as few changes as possible, other than those which are necessary to meet the demand from business and the professions for a new entity of this kind. For that reason, we have fundamentally resisted attempts both in Committee and, I am afraid, at this stage, to introduce into the Bill very substantial elements of partnership law, just as we have resisted attempts to amend company law any more than is absolutely necessary for the purpose of this exercise. I shall return to the amendments to Clause 5 before I conclude my remarks.
Two amendments were tabled in Committee: one from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and one from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. Both of them sought to apply, as a default, provisions of the Partnership Act 1890 and the noble Lord and the noble Baroness argued them with considerable force. I explained at the time that an LLP is a body corporate that is treated for tax purposes as a partnership. We strongly believe that it would create substantial uncertainties to apply partnership law in default to a body corporate. Companies Act provisions are being applied to an LLP by the regulations made under the Bill and the application of partnership law in general would lead to confusion as to how the two would interact.
However, we recognise that there is concern among consultees—indeed, that is why we issued a consultation document on the point—that circumstances may arise where, for example, an LLP does not have an agreement between its members, or where the agreement may not cover all situations. That is why in our amendment to Clause 5, which will be debated later, we say that there will be regulations but that those regulations will apply,
"in the absence of agreement as to any matter, by any provision made in relation to that matter by regulations under section 14(c)".
In other words, we are looking to agreement between the members of the limited liability partnership as the first line of defence and providing for regulations in the absence of that agreement. This series of default provisions in legislation will allow us the flexibility to modify the provisions, as necessary, depending on the practical experience of the operation of LLPs.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was not convinced by my arguments on the previous occasion. He said that he would bring the matter back on Report; indeed, he has done so. I said in Committee
852
that we would consult on the draft provisions, and that is what we are doing. The draft regulatory default provisions were published in February for consultation. A copy was sent to those who participated in the Committee stage and is available in the Library of the House.
The document raises three issues: first, whether the LLP regulations should contain such default provisions, and how they should be drafted; secondly, whether the LLP regulations should impose a duty of good faith between members; and, thirdly, whether, under minority protection, Section 459 of the Companies Act should be applied to an LLP. If the amendment before us were agreed to, it would preempt the outcome of that consultation. I cannot see any good reason why we should do so. Moreover, some of the provisions included in the amendment are, in our view, inappropriate for application.
I turn now to the details of each of the provisions in the Partnership Act 1890 that Amendment No. 1 seeks to incorporate into the Bill. Section 19 of the Act provides that mutual rights and duties of partners may be varied by consent. It is implicit in Clause 5 that an LLP is governed by agreement between its members. The part of our Amendment No. 7 to Clause 5 that I read out makes that clear. Indeed, the amendment would make the position even clearer because it provides that the mutual rights and duties of the LLP, and its members, are governed by an agreement between members, or between the members and the LLP, or, in the absence of an issue, by the default provisions contained in the regulations. I cannot agree that it is necessary for Section 19 to be applied to LLPs.
Section 24 contains the rules as to the interests and duties of partners subject to any agreement between them. The draft default provisions that we propose to include in regulations are based primarily on Section 24. We have concentrated on including those areas that were considered by consultees to be the most appropriate for limited liability partnerships. However, it was not considered necessary or appropriate to include the two provisions—Section 24(3) and (4)—which govern the financial relationship between partners and the partnership. We regard this as an area that should best be left to the members to decide between themselves.
Section 25 deals with the terms on which a partner can be expelled from the firm. This, too, is included in the draft default provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to Section 26, which is dealt with in Amendment No. 5.
Section 28 requires partners to render to any partner true accounts and full information of all things that affect the partnership—I love the Victorian language. It is our intention to apply by regulation Section 238 of the Companies Act 1985 to LLPs. That will require a copy of the LLPs annual accounts, together with a copy of the auditors' report on those accounts, to be sent to every member of the LLP and every holder of the LLP's debentures within a month of their being signed, and no later than 10 months after the end of the accounting period. In addition, the draft default

853
provision requires that the books of the LLP should be kept at the place of the LLP and that every member may have access to, inspect and copy any of them. Therefore, I see no reason for Section 28 to be applied; indeed, I would go as far as to say that the wording is less robust than that which we are including in the regulations. Failure to comply with Section 238 would mean that the LLP and the designated members who were in default would be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.
Section 29 concerns the accountability of members for private profit and Section 30 deals with the duty of a partner not to compete with the firm. We have suggested including provisions along these lines in the default provisions and we have sought consultees' views. Although the consultation paper suggests that it might be considered inappropriate to make these variable by an agreement between the LLP's members, the paper also points out that Section 19 of the Partnership Act appears to suggest that, even in the case of a partnership, Sections 29 and 30 may be overridden by consent.
Sections 32 and 35 concern the dissolution of a partnership either by expiration or notice, or by the court. An LLP will be a separate body corporate. It is our intention to apply to LLPs, by regulation, the appropriate parts of the Insolvency Act 1986, like those that apply to a company. It would not be appropriate to apply to a body corporate the dissolution provisions of a partnership; for example, it could have detrimental consequences if a member of an LLP were able to dissolve the LLP simply by giving notice to the other members. What if the LLP had entered into contracts with third parties? The LLP's status as a separate legal entity requires that dissolution is dealt with formally.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to the possibility of a member being permanently incapacitated. We believe that the application of the Insolvency Act 1986 would cover the situation because the legislation deals with such circumstances; for example, in a company with two members, one may become incapacitated. However, we shall consider that matter further to ascertain exactly how the partnership provisions and the insolvency legislation interact.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was good enough to say in his introduction that the difference between us has very much narrowed as regards whether these provisions should appear on the face of the Bill or in regulations. In view of the detailed analysis of the 1890 Act and what we propose to do in regulations, subject to consultation, I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord that it would be better to leave such matters to regulation.
6 P.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, although I do not know whether the Minister has persuaded me that it would be better to leave this to regulations, he has certainly managed to persuade me—if I ever thought of doing
854
otherwise—that this is not an issue on which we should force a Division of the House. Following the publication of the consultation paper, clearly this matter is one that causes us much less concern than was previously the case. The only issue to which we may return on Third Reading is the question of what should happen in the event of incapacity, given the fact that an LLP is clearly intended to be the sort of body within which a small group of people are working together. I understand that it would not necessarily be appropriate to dissolve the LLP or wind it up, but it may be desirable to include some kind of default provision that would enable the interest of someone who has become incapacitated to be bought out—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point I should stress that I am anxious to avoid conflict on Third Reading. Therefore, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on the issue and, if necessary, we can meet to discuss the matter along the lines of the investigation to which I referred in my response.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful for those comments. I am happy to accept the noble Lord's suggestion. In those circumstances, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Incorporation document etc.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("the form prescribed by regulations") and insert ("a form approved by the registrar").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 is intended to provide the Registrar of Companies with the same powers of approval as exist for the incorporation document in Clause 2(2)(a). We see no reason to treat the statement of compliance differently from the incorporation document in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, suggested in Committee that the original wording here looked a little "futuristic" because it referred to someone,
"who is to be a member".
He thought that this could perhaps be made more straightforward without undermining the effect of the provision. We agree. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this amendment seems to be very necessary, if I may say so. But, when turning to Clause 5, we see in the first line the words,
"The provisions of any agreement (express or implied) between the members of a limited liability partnership or between the limited liability partnership and the members as to the mutual rights and duties-,
and so on. Am I right in thinking that, bearing in mind the way in which Clause 2 is now drafted, subject to the amendment having been accepted—as we assume that it will be—the idea of an agreement between the members being implied seems to be most unlikely, and, indeed. I would have said impossible, bearing in mind

855
what is put forward in Clause 2? Will the noble Lord be so good as to say, bearing in mind Clause 2, how the words "or implied" in Clause 5 can be consistent?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I had not intended to comment on this amendment, but as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has raised this matter, perhaps it would be more appropriate for me to raise now the question I was going to raise when Amendment No. 7 to Clause 5 is considered. I should be grateful if the Minister could elaborate also on the provisions that he expects to be contained within the incorporation document. I now look at Clause 2(2)(a) which states that the incorporation document must,
"be in a form approved by the registrar (or as near to such a form as circumstances allow).
All the other requirements visàvis the incorporation document in Clause 2(2) are extremely straightforward factual matters: name, registered office, the names and addresses of designated members. However, as regards Clause 5, and in particular Amendment No. 7 to Clause 5, questions are raised as to exactly what is potentially to be included in the incorporation document. It seems to me that Clause 5—whether as it now stands, or as it is proposed to be amended—makes no sense unless Clause 2(2)(a) will involve matters of substance visàvis the agreement between members.
Perhaps this is rather a fast ball to bowl at the Minister on this clause and perhaps this is a matter that is better dealt with after this debate, but I thought it appropriate to follow the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as his point touches on the one I have tried to explain.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the simple answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is that the words he referred to would be removed from the Bill by Amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 7, which stands in my name, seeks to omit Clause 5(1). Therefore, if it were accepted, there would be no reference to an agreement (express or implied). However, as a more general point, I think that the noble Lord will acknowledge that the courts may well find that an agreement between members could be implied from their conduct, even if it were not written down. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that—
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord; I should have noticed that. However, the point that he has made disposes of the point that I made.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. If the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will allow me, I shall respond to his detailed point about Clause 5 when we reach Amendment No. 7, to which it properly refers.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 6, leave out from ("anyone") to ("that") in line 7 and insert ("who subscribed his name to the incorporation document:).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
WINDING-UP OF A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FOR INACTIVITY OR INAPPROPRIATEACTIVITY
(" . A limited liability partnership may, in accordance with regulations made under section 13, be wound up by the court on the petition of the Secretary of State or a member of the limited liability partnership if—

(a) it has not for a period exceeding 12 months carried on a lawful business with a view to profit. or

(b) its sole or main activity is an activity which is not the carrying-on of a lawful business with a view to profit.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment which follows from the Government's amendment to Clause 2 in Committee which requires those who are subscribers to an incorporation document of an LLP to be people who are associated in carrying on business with a view to profit. Those words reflect the requirement for the formation of a partnership.
However, what happens if that requirement is satisfied at the time of the incorporation of an LLP but ceases to be satisfied afterwards? What happens, for example, if the LLP switches from a lawful business to an unlawful one; or—perhaps this is a little more realistic—what happens if an LLP starts to operate as a not-for-profit organisation? Is there any sanction for its doing so? If there is a sanction, what is it? If there is not a sanction, what is to prevent an LLP doing this and departing from what is clearly the basic intention with which LLPs are allowed to be formed? I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this amendment but, having heard the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I simply add the following points. If this amendment is to probe the question of what is to happen in the circumstances that have been mentioned, I very much hope that the answer will not be that it is intended that members of the limited liability partnership will be able themselves to wind up the LLP in that event. The reason I say that is that if the LLP has traded and has incurred liabilities directly to third parties, I should be concerned if a member of the LLP was able to bring it to an end with a potential detriment to third parties in that they would not be able to pursue their remedies against the LLP.
From time to time in the field of company law, a company is wound up and then a third party liability comes to light. The third party may be put to

857
considerable difficulty, and sometimes finds it impossible, to have the company restored simply so that the rights against the entity can be pursued. Although I do not for a moment doubt the desirability of probing the issue, I hope that the answer will not be what is stated in the amendment. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, both for moving the amendment—it enables me to clarify the issue—and for the way in which he moved it.
First, he is right to say that the amendment arises out of the alterations made in Committee which changed the definition of the role of an LLP to that of carrying on a lawful business with a view to profit. Secondly, he is right to say that the amendment deals with a change which takes place in the lifetime of an LLP—in other words, after incorporation.
Providing for the wind-up of an LLP in the way proposed by the amendment seems unnecessary. In one case, as my noble friend Lord Goldsmith said, it could be damaging. As to the issue of a lawful business, the combined operation of the provisions of Section 432 of the Companies Act 1985 and Section 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 mean that the Secretary of State has the power to petition the courts to wind up any company whose affairs are being carried out for an unlawful purpose. It is our intention to apply the relevant provisions of these Acts to limited liability partnerships by way of regulation, and so the Secretary of State will have identical powers in this respect. That means that we do not need to make separate provisions on the face of the Bill.
The proposed amendment may provide members with wider grounds to apply for a winding-up order than those which currently apply to companies. The scope of "lawful business" may possibly include circumstances where there has been misconduct or fraudulent behaviour. At present, as insolvency and company law applies to companies, it would be only the Secretary of State who could apply for a winding up on the ground that it was expedient in the public interest, based on a report furnished under Section 432 of the Companies Act. As my noble friend Lord Goldsmith pointed out, we would have some difficulty if either the intent or the effect of the clause was that a member would have analogous powers to wind up an LLP to those which the Secretary of State has in the Insolvency Act.
As to carrying on with a view to profit, again, we can see little reason for what is proposed. Once again, the intended application to LLPs by regulations of appropriate parts of the Insolvency Act will provide assistance here. It will be possible for an LLP to be wound up by its members through a petition to the court as a result of our intention to apply in regulations Section 124 of the Insolvency Act. We see no good
858
reason to provide separately for members' winding up in the set of circumstances described by this amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Members]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert ("or, in the absence of agreement with the other members as to cessation of membership, by giving reasonable notice to the other members").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The noble Lord argued in Committee that the issue of cessation of membership should be dealt with in the Bill rather than in regulations. He thought that provision in regulations might be ultra tires and asked us to look again at the issue. We have concluded that it is more appropriate to include here provision that, unless otherwise agreed, a member may withdraw from the LLP by giving reasonable notice.
The noble Lord's amendment in Committee specified a particular time period. We have concluded that reasonable notice is more appropriate than setting a specific time period. Depending on the circumstances, whatever was included in legislation might be regarded as too long or too short, and it will, in any case, be possible for members to set a specific period for giving notice by agreement. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having taken this point on board. Obviously I greatly welcome the amendment.
However, there is one point that I should like to follow up, and that is: what are the consequences for someone who retires on giving notice while the LLP continues in operation? In the case of a company limited by shares, his or her shareholding would remain in the company except in the special circumstances where Section 459 of the Companies Act would apply or where the other shareholders agreed to buy out his or her shares. What will happen in the case of an LLP, where there are no shareholdings as such? Should there not be some kind of default provision to ensure that when a member of an LLP retires, the LLP is required to pay out to the retiring member his or her share in the LLP's property? Otherwise we could run into considerable difficulty.
Let us take the case of three partners who are running a small restaurant business and one of them leaves. It is clearly inappropriate that that member's interest in the LLP should be simply locked in for the benefit of the two remaining members. It is not clear on the face of the Bill that there is a right for the outgoing member to take out his or her interest.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment. I expressed

859
concern at Second Reading that the Bill does not expressly provide for a member who wishes to retire from the partnership. I am pleased that the amendment now covers that point. Although I suggested that notice be given to the LLP, I accept the Minister's preference for notice to be given to the other members.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has raised an issue which is, in my limited experience, a current difficulty in company law. If a shareholder director, for example, wished to leave a company, it could be that an absolute right for him to take out his shareholding at a previously agreed rate could bring the company to its knees. I have seen examples of that.
The situation is the same for an LLP as it is for a company; there cannot be any default provision provided in legislation. It will have to be done by agreement between the members and the buy-out will have to be negotiated. Any default would be extremely complicated. But the same problem arises with companies and it would be a pity to attempt to bring something in for LLPs which we have not been able to do for companies.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether that will be the case. It seems to me that there is a serious lacuna here. Membership of an LLP is so closely linked with management that it is very difficult to contemplate circumstances in which a member who retires from the LLP cannot take out his or her share in it without the agreement of the other partners.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that would have to be done by agreement. Anyone going into an LLP as a member must, at the time of the original agreement, put himself or herself into a position of being either the person who is leaving or the persons left behind, and take the steps necessary to protect that position in the future.
It will never be a straightforward issue; it is not a straightforward position for partnerships under the 1890 Act. The Law Commission is considering partnership law generally and we expect that it will look at this issue in its consultation paper. If I can add anything to that, I will certainly do so. However, I do not see any way round that difficulty, whatever the nature of the business entity.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("(rather than members of a limited liability partnership)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. She suggested in Committee that it might be possible to simplify the wording of Clause 4. We have looked again and we
860
have decided that the wording in brackets adds little value and can be advantageously removed. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the amendment. It certainly simplifies the understanding of the status of members. I simply suggest that the final comma should be removed. It is a small point, but it affects the intonation and thereby the understanding of the clause.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that sufficient discretion is allowed to the printers to do that without reference to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Relationship of members etc.]:
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (i) and insert—
("() Except as far as otherwise provided by this Act or any other enactment, the mutual rights and duties of the members of a limited liability partnership, and the mutual rights and duties of a limited liability partnership and its members, shall be governed—

(a) by agreement between the members, or between the limited liability partnership and its members, or

(b) in the absence of agreement as to any matter, by any provision made in relation to that matter by regulations under section 1 4(c).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already anticipated some of the discussion on this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, tabled a probing amendment at the Committee stage to establish the thinking behind subsection (1). We have looked again at the wording and decided that there is no need to refer to the incorporation document but that it is beneficial to include something to point to the importance of agreements between members in determining internal relations. Of course, we are looking for agreements as far as possible rather than the implementation of default provisions. In addition, in the light of our consultation on draft regulations for default provisions governing the relationships between members, we are of the view that it is helpful to point to the default provisions by amending Clause 5(1)(b) to refer to "regulations under section 14(c)", which is what we were discussing when we were concerned with Amendment No. 1.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised the question of the wording at Clause 2(2)(a). I think I can deal with it most readily now because the reference is to an incorporation document. If it is going to be meaningful, it must have information about the agreement between members. The registrar cannot say what the agreement should contain or what form it should be in, so the incorporation document is limited specifically to the details set out in paragraphs (b) to (f) and paragraph (a) is deliberately left so that the members of a partnership can, provided they state the

861
necessary facts in paragraphs (b) to (f), use their own form. I do not think there is any danger here of anybody being misled.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am in favour of this amendment apart from one point on which I would like the noble Lord's views. Subsection (c), which is an exception to the normal effect of the provisions, states,
"applying or incorporating, with such modifications as appear appropriate, any law relating to partnerships".
Surely the law relating to partnerships applies in any event and therefore subsection (c) would seem to be unnecessary. If the noble Lord can say that it is necessary, that is all well and good but, if the law relating to partnerships prevails, I would have thought it was unnecessary to make a regulation applying it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, the law relating to partnerships does not apply. The whole principle of this Bill is that the new business entity called a limited liability partnership is a corporate body, not a partnership. The only partnership element of it is the tax treatment of the members of the limited liability partnership. The consultative document which we issued in February, of which the noble Lord did not receive a copy because he did not take part in the earlier proceedings on the Bill—he is welcome to have a copy—specifies those elements of the law of partnership and specifically the Partnership Act 1890, which ought to be applied in regulations. That is the reason why we have to have Clause 14(c).
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before saying what I was going to say, I come to the aid of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because surely Clause 14(c) says that the Government may by regulations apply or incorporate,
"with such modifications as appear appropriate, any law relating to partnerships".
Therefore, they could incorporate sections from the Partnership Act if they were so inclined.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise for intervening. I thought I had looked around but I am sure the House will allow the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to intervene now. Yes indeed, that is exactly what we have been debating.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Mr Lords, perhaps I may come back to the amendment itself. At the previous stage, I said quite frankly that I was confused by the purport of subsection (1) of Clause 5 and, to be frank, although it is an improvement in that I think I understand what it is saying. I have a question for the Minister. If one were to leave out Clause 5 entirely, would it not be harmless as regards the Bill? That is to say, as Clause 5 currently stands with the amendment now proposed in it, is not all of that necessary and is it not essential law that would be implied in the complete absence of Clause 5? If that is not the case, both I and the House would like to know what purpose it serves
862
and, in particular, I would like some reassurance that both parts of Clause 5 as now proposed to be amended will not and could not prejudice innocent third parties.
I should like to add one other point. I assume I am right in interpreting the amendment as applying to agreements between all the members from the limited liability company and not some of the members. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that as well.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, before the Minister replies to the noble Lord's question, perhaps I may raise a point which arises out of a matter raised with the Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It relates to the omission of the words "express or implied" which qualified the word "agreement" in the provision which is being taken out of the Bill. With great respect, it suggests to me that, if the word "agreement" is left unqualified, then it leaves open, by reference to what is commonplace in partnership law at the moment, the argument that an agreement has been created by implication. In the ordinary course of events, that would not give rise to concern but, when one sees the default provision in paragraph (b), one may have cases where, in order to escape from the default provision, a party seeks to rely upon an implied agreement. Experience tells one that, in general, litigation finds it more difficult to cope with cases where implied agreements are sought to be spelled out of the evidence than express agreements. If it is intended to restrict the kind of agreement which is now referred to in the clause, will the Minister think a little more about whether it would be desirable to write into the Bill words to the effect that the agreement should be express or, even better, in writing between, as has been suggested, all the members or between all the members and the LLP'? I raise the issue simply because it was a matter of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and it could have some bearing on the extent to which litigation is either generated or avoided.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may respond first of all to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The reason for having Clause 5 in the Bill is in order to make it clear that an agreement between the members or between the limited liability partnership and its members has primacy and that there should be provision in the absence of any agreement. If we did not have that, the status of the regulations to be made under Clause 14(c) would not be clear. The new amendment first of all gives power to apply the default provision which was not explicit before and, secondly, makes it clear that agreement between members is subject to any other enactment. On those grounds, we believe that Clause 5 is necessary.
Secondly, the noble Lord asked whether it applied between the limited liability partnership and all its members, or between all its members or some of its members. Paragraph (a) provides that it is,
"between the members, or between the limited liability partnership and its members".

863
My understanding is that that does not apply to "some" of its members.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, raised the issue of express or implied agreements. He is right that litigation is easier for express agreements than for applied agreements. It is intended to have—and it is necessary—implied agreements in certain circumstances. For example, it is difficult to set out explicitly in advance an agreement on sharing profits, because that might change from time to time and there might be a formula which would bring about an implied agreement. For that reason one still has to have the possibility of implied agreements, although it is not necessary to refer to it on the face of the Bill. What is being proposed here is no different from the law on partnerships which has worked for 110 years. We do not see any reason to suppose that it will be more difficult.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert—
("(3) Every member of limited liability partnership shall have a duty of good faith to every other member and also to the limited liability partnership provided that in the event of a conflict between those duties his duty to the limited liability partnership shall prevail.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name and in the names of my colleagues. We believe that the public interest would be served by retaining on the face of the Bill a good faith obligation. We feel that with some strength, notwithstanding the clarity of the Minister's statements today and at previous stages that the Government want this to be clearly a corporate animal and not a partnership one.
Perhaps I may refer to the consultation paper of last month, which covers this point. I wish to congratulate the author on his helpful piece of paper. It must be a new way of dealing with legislation to scotch amendments put forward in this House by saying, "I have now produced a new consultation document so you are in baulk". We cannot buy that, especially since at the previous stage one of my amendments to do with the change of name of LLPs was swept from court on the ground that a prior and existing consultation on company law was going on. If we continue with that thesis and Ministers are quick on their feet in setting up internal consultation groups, there will be very little left for us to talk about. Therefore, I shall not pay any attention to the paper except to say that it is jolly good and I shall refer to some of the points in it.
The author's arguments against including a duty of good faith are, first, that the application of a duty by statute will require a formulation that may well prevent the duty between members developing in the future. The formulation in my amendment would not do that and is precisely intended to hitch the wagon, so to speak, to the common law definition of good faith. Secondly, he says that the express application would be unusual. Well, as the French would say, tans pis. We believe that it is necessary. Thirdly, he says that it is not expressly mentioned in the Partnership Act 1890. That
864
is so, but the Partnership Act 1890 was itself only a consolidation of existing common law. Here, given that we are moving completely away from the Partnership Act 1890, there will be no implied duty of good faith unless it is expressly written into the Bill. That is why the amendment is before us. Fourthly, he makes the point, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, himself made several times in previous debates, that it could be confusing. One could have parallel fiduciary duties—partners to each other and partners to the LLP. However, the amendment is perfectly clear that if there is such a conflict, the duty to the LLP prevails.
We then come to considerations with which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, dealt in a letter which he kindly wrote to me dealing with this matter and in which he said that he was not convinced that there was the need to encourage greater vigilance in selection and working with other partners in the case of an LLP. He made the point that the reputation of an LLP is very much bound up in the name and that anyone breaking the rules would find himself in extremely difficult circumstances in getting a job if he had had to leave. The world we live in is very different from the world that prevailed even 20 years ago. Reputation within and between partnerships is now a fragile strand. Partnerships are now so large and the rate at which membership of those partnerships changes is growing apace. To rely on the drumbeat of the market place in upholding standards within partnerships is no longer sufficient.
Perhaps I may offer one brief anecdote. Not long ago I met two partners from a large law firm. I knew them both. Then, suddenly, two others materialised from the other direction. I knew one of them. I said, "Of course you know each other". They said, "Well, no". I said, "Let me introduce you. You are members of the same partnership". These partnerships are very large and never the twain shall meet. We feel that it is in the public interest to retain this aspect of partnership.
It was Lord Lindley who, in the case of Blisset V. Daniel in 1853, put it rather well. He said that,
"if any dispute arise between partners…he [the partner concerned] will be required to show, not only that he has the law on his side, but that his conduct will bear to be tried by the highest standard of honour".
There are those in the House and outside who are anxious about the impact of the Bill on the highest standards, which we would say do currently prevail within the old partnership structure. The fact that they prevail is intimately bound up with the joint and several liability and the duty of good faith that exists partner to partner and the mutual confidence and trust which that engenders. We very much hope that the Government will not be sidetracked by the old argument about whether we have here a corporate animal or a partnership animal. We accept that a corporation is being created by the Bill. But it is important that that one very particular aspect of partnership—law the duty of good faith between partners—should continue. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is an interesting but slightly puzzling amendment. Although the

865
partnership is to be incorporated, its decisions will, the provision states,
"in the event of a conflict",
of the kind mentioned, depend on a majority of the partners. It seems to me that that will arise rather frequently. After all, in any partnership there will, before decisions are reached, be a good deal of discussion and perhaps not complete agreement between the partners. We should legislate on the assumption that that is what will normally happen. When it does happen, the view of the majority should prevail. That is another, and perhaps better, way to express it.
Perhaps I may have the attention of the noble Lord who moved the amendment. I should like to draw attention to two drafting points which are so minor that I hardly dare to mention them. First, in common English the expression "every other member" means "every alternative member". That cannot be what the noble Lord means. If the amendment said "each other member", the noble Lord would have it right. Secondly, I was brought up to avoid ever using the expression "and also" because that is merely repetition. Therefore, the word "also" could be omitted.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendment, although in light of the observations of my noble friend Lord Renton perhaps I should add "in principle". In so doing, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for his correspondence on the point. I have reread the reference to a duty of good faith between members in the Minister's letter to me dated 10th January 2000. In that letter he states that the difficulty lies in how to define it since there is no express duty set out in the Partnership Act 1890 and, instead, it has been developed under general law.
Given that partnership law is to apply only to LLPs in a very limited way—namely, for the purposes of taxation—it cannot matter that it is not expressly referred to in the Partnership Act. I believe that the expression and status of a duty of good faith as between members themselves and members and the LLP will assist in protecting the interests of third parties. I also agree with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, about standards in that regard.
The amendment complements the remainder of Clause 5 and is of assistance when considering the apportionment of liability, to which I referred at the beginning of the debate. If a partnership wants to convert to an LLP and, in so doing, retain the partnership ethos—something which has not so far been expressed this afternoon—surely a duty of good faith, although not expressed in partnership law, is central to maintaining that ethos.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the amendment would apply a duty of good faith between members in addition to an existing duty between the
866
members and the limited liability partnership. I recognise that the amendment has been drafted so as to provide that the duty which exists between the members and the LLP prevails if there is any conflict. That was one problem which arose in Committee which we do not face now. However, I am still not convinced of the necessity or desirability of imposing such a duty between members.
The consultation paper published by the Government on 16th February, which set out draft regulatory default provisions governing the relationship between members, raised the issue of a duty of good faith. If I am accused of consulting, I plead guilty. If the noble Lord suggests that I used the argument about consultation to stop him tabling and speaking to amendments, or even voting on them, I plead not guilty. I recognise that he is fully entitled to put his point of view regardless of the consultation document. I admit that, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I said that Amendment No. 1 would scupper the consultation process. However, the noble Lord is not obliged to pay attention to anything that I say; he can proceed as he wishes.
This is a matter which affects not only Members of your Lordships' House, learned in the law and in accountancy as they are, but the outside world. Therefore, it is proper to seek outside views on issues which are raised in this House. I should have thought that noble Lords would be pleased by that rather than the reverse. We explained in the paper that, even though it was not expressly set out in legislation, we believed that it was reasonable to expect that a member would owe a fiduciary duty to the LLP because he would be the firm's agent. The paper went on to say that it was doubtful that any similar duty would be owed between the members, but that there were a number of dangers in imposing a duty. The most important of these is that at present there is no statutory definition of "good faith".
It is generally recognised that a duty of good faith includes the following factors (which are a summary of paragraph 20 of the consultation document): first, a duty of honesty and good faith owed to each fellow member. I am not sure that that deals with the question whether it should be "each" or "every". Good faith also includes: a requirement for openness; a duty to act in favour of the firm; fair treatment of a minority within the firm; and a duty not to compete with the firm. Those are generally accepted factors in the context of partnerships, although they do not feature in the Partnership Act 1890. Why should we assume that reference to a duty of good faith with regard to limited liability partnerships will result in the same conclusions as exist for partnerships? Moreover, why should we assume that in future what is applicable to partnerships should now be applicable to LLPs? In any case, there will be nothing to prevent members agreeing between themselves in their agreement that they owe particular duties to each other.
We are doubtful about the desirability and necessity of imposing a duty of good faith. However, this is an issue on which we have gone out to consultation and it may be that we shall be persuaded otherwise by the

867
results. It is open to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to press his amendment if he wants to do so, but we may still be persuaded when the results of the consultation are known. At the moment, however, we are not inclined to pre-empt the results of the consultation and to agree to the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred to partnerships where there were hundreds of members who did not know one another. I do not believe that that affects the duty of good faith between members. I do not see how the duty of good faith, which from the factors that I have cited appears to be intensely personal, will apply any more or less according to whether the partners know each other. Surely the important fact is that in large partnerships the members owe a duty to the firm, which is much more effective.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to majority decisions. We have provided for such decisions by agreement in the default provisions which will be part of regulations. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's point.
I understand the concern of noble Lords, but it arises from a desire to bring into legislation partnership principles which should apply only to taxation and, as far as possible, to little else. That is the principle on which we have drafted the legislation. We cannot believe that it will be helped by introducing the principle of good faith as is proposed in the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, can the noble Lord point to where majority decisions are expressly mentioned?
Lord Macintosh of Haringey: My Lords, they are to be provided for in regulations under Clause 14(c).
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. The definition of "good faith" is classic common law. The common law has done the job of defining that expression in relation to partnerships, and could do it eminently well in regard to companies. That would be a much better way to proceed than is trying to define it and set it in concrete.
The noble Lord referred to partners being able voluntarily to write into their partnership agreements good faith obligations. Our whole approach is based on the public interest in not leaving yet further matters to the partners of very privileged animals: LLPs. I very much hope that the Government will reconsider the arguments expressed this afternoon. I do not believe that the public interest will be served other than by allowing the good faith obligation to prevail in limited liability partnerships. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Clause 6 [Members as agents]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 32. leave out ("or believes").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the issue of the word "or believes" arose in Committee. By removing the words "or believes" from Clause 6(2)(b), the amendment narrows the test of authority in Clause 6(2)(b) so that an LLP is bound by the actions of its member except where the person dealing with that member knew that he had no authority. The amended wording follows the precedent of Section 5 of the Partnership Act 1890.
The effect is to strengthen the position of persons dealing with an LLP, so that the LLP will be bound by a member's actions unless the member had no authority to act, and the person dealing with that member knew that he had no authority or did not know or believe him to be a member of the LLP.
We have concluded that this strikes a better balance between the interests of the third party and those of the member in the light of discussion on this point in Committee, and particularly the comments from my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, to whom I wrote about this and another issue which arose in the debate on Clause 6. I should like, if I may, to touch upon that other issue. It was whether the common law could be relied upon in all cases to achieve the liability of a member for his own negligence: and whether the Explanatory Notes to the Bill accurately reflected the position. I do not think it appropriate or necessary to return here to anything that was said in Committee, which drew out cogently the potential for uncertainty, other than to point out that it would be outside the scope of the Bill to amend the general law on the duty of care, and that any other attempt to create greater legislative certainty would seem likely to cause as many problems as it would solve.
However, I should like to note that we shall be revising the Explanatory Notes on this point before they go with the Bill to another place. We shall draw on the detail which was contained in the correspondence that I have had with my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, which has been copied to other Members who have taken part in these proceedings. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. I also welcome, and am grateful to the Minister for, the indication of the intention to revise the Explanatory Notes to deal with the other point that I made in Committee.
Throughout, my contributions to the debate have been from concern for the protection of third parties who deal with this new entity. I formed the conclusion that it was not technically possible to table an amendment as regards the personal liability of members, the point to which I referred in Committee. I do not repeat it. However, I believe that it is an indication, as is this amendment, of the need for people to know what they are dealing with.
On Amendment No. 9, the onus must be on the limited liability partnership to draw clearly to the attention of any third party a limitation on the authority of any member with whom it deals. That is

869
why I welcome the amendment. It provides clearly that nothing less than knowledge on the part of the third party that the member did not have authority will do.
For the same reasons, at Second Reading I suggested that the courts should be vigilant to ensure that the device of the LLP was not misused. It should not be a trap for the unwary who may not understand that the body with which they are dealing, although it includes the word "partnership", is not the same as a partnership which carries with it personal liability and responsibility.
I am grateful to the Minister for having indicated changes that may be made to the Explanatory Notes. I support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. Of course, it does not remove unlimited liability under all circumstances. That still exists when an act is in bad faith. However, my noble friend's general point is legitimate. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Income tax and chargeable gains]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5. line 27, leave out from ("section-) to end of line 35 and insert ("118 insert—
"Limited liability partnerships
Treatment of limited liability partnerships.
118ZA. For the purposes of the Tax Acts, a trade, profession or business carried on by a limited liability partnership with a view to profit shall be treated as carried on in partnership by its members (and not by the limited liability partnership as such): and, accordingly. the property of the limited liability partnership shall be treated for those purposes as partnership property.
Restriction on relief
118ZB. Sections 117 and 118 have effect in relation to a member of a limited liability partnership as in relation to a limited partner, but subject to sections 118ZC and 118ZD.
Member's contribution to trade.
118ZC—(1) Subsection (3) of section 117 does not have effect in relation to a member of a limited liability partnership.
(2) But, for the purposes of that section and section 118, such a member's contribution to a trade at any time ("the relevant time") is the greater of—

(a) the amount subscribed by him, and

(b) the amount of his liability on a winding up.

(3) The amount subscribed by a member of a limited liability partnership is the amount which he has contributed to the limited liability partnership as capital, less so much of that amount (if any) as—

(a) he has previously, directly or indirectly, drawn out or received back,

(b) he so draws out or receives back during the period of five years beginning with the relevant time,

(c) he is or may be entitled so to draw out or receive back at any time when he is a member of the limited liability partnership, or

(d) he is or may be entitled to require another person to reimburse to him.

(4) The amount of the liability of a member of a limited liability partnership on a winding up is the amount which—

(a) he is liable to contribute to the assets of the limited liability partnership in the event of its being wound up. and

(b) he remains liable so to contribute for the period of at least live years beginning with the relevant time (or until it is wound up. if that happens before the end of that period).

Carry forward of unrelieved losses.
118ZD.—(1) Where amounts relating to a trade carried on by a member of a limited liability partnership are, in any one or more chargeable periods, prevented from being given or allowed by section 117 or 118 as it applies otherwise than by virtue of this section (his "total unrelieved loss"), subsection (2) applies in each subsequent chargeable period in which—

(a) he carries on the trade as a member of the limited liability partnership. and

(b) any of his total unrelieved loss remains outstanding.

(2) Sections 380, 381, 393A(1) and 403 (and sections 117 and 118 as they apply in relation to those sections) shall have effect in the subsequent chargeable period as if—

(a) any loss sustained or incurred by the member in the trade in that chargeable period were increased by an amount equal to so much of his total unrelieved loss as remains outstanding in that period, or

(b) (if no loss is so sustained or incurred) a loss of that amount were so sustained or incurred.

(3) To ascertain whether any (and, if so, how much) of a member's total unrelieved loss remains outstanding in the subsequent chargeable period, deduct from the amount of his total unrelieved loss the aggregate of—

(a) any relief given under any provision of the Tax Acts (otherwise than as a result of subsection (2)) in respect of his total unrelieved loss in that or any previous chargeable period, and

(b) any amount given or allowed in respect of his total unrelieved loss as a result of subsection (2) in any previous chargeable period (or which would have been so given or allowed had a claim been made)."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 10 is horribly long and technical and makes heavy reading. (I was going to enter a bet to see how many people had read it!) For that reason, I shall deal with the amendment in instalments by reference to each of the four new sections that it proposes inserting in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
The first new section is Section 118ZA of the ICTA. This section is largely the same as Section 111 A of the ICTA that was previously inserted by Clause 10. The only change that has been made to that provision is to insert the words "with a view to profit" which we debated in Committee, after the requirement that an LLP must be carrying on a trade, profession or business if it is to be taxed as a partnership. In this way we are seeking to ensure that an LLP that is taxed as a partnership would otherwise have been capable of operating as a partnership under the 1890 Act.
As the effect of this clause is that LLPs will be taxed as partnerships I should like to take this opportunity to say something about this tax treatment. The limited liability partnership is a response to the desire, particularly from professional partnerships, for an entity which will allow them to operate with limited liability, while maintaining a partnership ethos—that is, the flexibility to organise their own internal structure, and to participate in the ownership an

871
running of the business. For these reasons, such an entity may also prove attractive to start-up businesses, and to multi-disciplinary businesses. We concluded, in the light also of the views of the trade and industry committee, that it would be wrong to try to restrict this combination of limited liability and partnership structure to the professions, even if it were possible to find a satisfactory legal definition.
We have become aware, however, that taxing LLPs as partnerships might mean that there is scope for them to have alternative uses for which they were not intended, where the primary or only attraction may be their tax status. We shall be looking further into these issues with the Inland Revenue with a view to bringing forward legislation in the Finance Bill 2001, which should be in time for the availability of limited liability partnerships. Clearly, this will only be after appropriate consultation. There is no intention to undermine the commercial certainty of taxation as a partnership for those businesses for whom the entity was intended, and clearly this will be uppermost in our minds in whatever option we propose. I wished to put that on the record.
The next new section of the Taxes Act that is inserted by the amendment is Section 118ZB. This and the remaining aspects of this amendment make up the proposed amendment to which I referred at Committee stage, at col. 1395 of the Official Report of 24th January. The effect of the amendment is to make the provisions of the existing Sections 117 and 118 of ICTA applicable to members of LLPs with detailed modifications that I shall explain.
Sections 117 and 118 are anti-avoidance provisions that were introduced in 1985. They currently apply only to limited partnerships under the 1907 Act that carry on a trade. They operate to restrict tax relief claimed under specified provisions. Section 117 applies to individual partners; and Section 118 applies to corporate partners respectively. We propose that the extension of Sections 117 and 118 will apply only to claims made by members of trading LLPs and not claims by professions.
The reason that they are being extended to LLPs is that without doing so there would be the same scope as for the 1907 Act limited partnership for using LLPs as vehicles for tax avoidance. This avoidance would involve people buying into LLPs to claim tax relief for losses substantially in excess of their capital contributions; or interest could be artificially manufactured on loans to buy an interest in the LLPs and relief claim for that interest. The particular claims for tax relief by members of LLPs to which Sections 117 and 118 will apply are the same as the particular claims by partners in the 1907 Act limited partnerships. These are claims to tax relief against income other than profits from the trade of the LLP for interest paid on loans to buy into or provide working capital for the LLP and for trading losses of the LLP. There is no restriction by these sections of tax relief for interest paid or trading losses that are set against the partnership profit. Any amount by which the loss is restricted can be carried forward and set against the members' future shares of the LLP profits.
The claims to these tax reliefs are limited by Sections 117 or 118 to a specified amount which, for limited partnerships, is the partner's capital contribution plus any undrawn profit. That limit would not have worked for LLPs which will be structured differently. Because of this, the new Section 118ZC, which this amendment inserts, defines the limit which reflected our policy of allowing claims by members in LLPs up to the amount of money that they stood to lose if the LLP was wound up because it was insolvent. The effect of this provision is to set a limit on claims based on any capital that the member has subscribed to become a member, plus any undrawn share of profit and any further amounts that he or she has undertaken to contribute in the event that the LLP is wound up. The provision includes certain conditions that ensure that relief cannot be obtained on the basis of money that has been temporarily lodged with or committed to the LLP and then withdrawn after the tax relief has been given.
The provisions of new Section 118ZD cater for the situation where a member of an LLP who has had a claim to loss relief restricted by Sections 117 or 118 later makes a further capital contribution. Where this happens, he or she can claim relief for any balance of the loss that was not relieved in the period of the original claim and has not, in the mean time, been set against the LLP's trading profit. This claim is made on the basis that the loss arose in the year of the further contribution. This provision was introduced in response to comments by the bodies which were consulted. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to say that I am a member of the Tax Law Review Committee. It is currently undertaking the tax law rewrite project, putting tax law into reasonably understandable English. All I can say is that the Minister has made our task considerably more difficult!
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly and simply to the amendment. I want to raise three concerns on which we would appreciate the Minister's response. First, if a member borrows to provide funds to an LLP, we see no reason why interest on the loans should not be available for off-set against income from sources other than the LLP as that interest will have been funded from sources other than the LLP.
Secondly, we agree with the principle that tax relief for losses incurred by the LLP should be restricted to cash lost by the member, but presently there is concern that the provision fails to achieve this because of the treatment of profits undrawn at the date of the loss and the treatment of subsequent profits retained to replace lost capital.
Thirdly, it is proposed that transparency for capital gains tax purposes is lost if the LLP ceases to carry on a trade or business, with potentially serious consequences if, for example, the LLP ceases one trade and commences another. Does not the Minister agree that it would make sense for the transparency to

873
remain for assets held on the date of cessation at least for a sufficient period to allow for their orderly disposal?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise for challenging the Tax Law Review Committee. I fear that there will be more challenges before it has completed its work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised three technical questions. I hope that she will be satisfied if I write to her on those issues. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 11
Page 5. line 42. at end insert ("with a view to profit").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12. These amendments would achieve two objects. Amendment No. 11 links the partnership tax treatment allowed by new Section 59A of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 to Section 59 of that Act. The words,
"with a view to profit",
refer back to the Partnership Act 1890 definition of "partnership" used in Section 59 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act. Only business carried out with a view to profit should be treated as partnerships for tax purposes. That is consistent with our debate in Committee.
Amendment No. 12 makes it clear that the tax referred to in new Section 59A of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 is tax in respect of chargeable gains. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 44, after ("tax") insert ("in respect of chargeable gains").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 8, at end insert—
("(2) Where subsection (I) ceases to apply in relation to a limited liability partnership with the effect that tax is assessed and charged—

(a) on the limited liability partnership (as a company) in respect of chargeable gains accruing on the disposal of any of its assets, and

(b) on the members in respect of chargeable gains accruing on the disposal of any of their capital interests in the limited liability partnership,

it shall be assessed and charged on the limited liability partnership as if subsection (1) had never applied in relation to it.
874
(3) Neither the commencement of the application of subsection (1) nor the cessation of its application in relation to a limited liability partnership is to be taken as giving rise to the disposal of any assets by it or any of its members."
() After section 156 of that Act insert—
"Cessation of trade by limited liability partnership.
156A.—(1) Where. immediately before the time of cessation of trade, a member of a limited liability partnership holds an asset, or an interest in an asset, acquired by him for a consideration treated as reduced under section 152 or 153, he shall be treated as if a chargeable gain equal to the amount of the reduction accrued to him immediately before that time.
(2) Where. as a result of section 154(2). a chargeable gain on the disposal of an asset, or an interest in an asset, by a member of a limited liability partnership has not accrued before the time of cessation of trade, the member shall be treated as if the chargeable gain accrued immediately before that time.
(3) In this section "the time of cessation of trade", in relation to a limited liability partnership. means the time when section 59A(1) ceases to apply in relation to the limited liability partnership.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 13 has two closely related purposes. First, it clarifies the tax treatment both of LLPs and of LLP members where the LLP is in liquidation. Neither the coming into operation of Section 59A at the start of a business of an LLP, nor its ending at liquidation, causes a charge to arise on the members. In liquidation, the "transparent" treatment of the LLP members as partners can no longer apply as the assets of the LLP vest in the liquidator who disposes of them to meet the claims of creditors. It would be unrealistic for the Inland Revenue to attempt to tax the LLP members on disposals of assets by the liquidator. Instead, any tax due on such disposals will be met by the liquidator under the normal corporate regime for liquidations. The LLP members will continue to be taxed under the rules for individuals, but their asset will be an interest in the LLP which may give rise either to a chargeable gain or an allowable loss on a disposal following liquidation.
The second purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any gains which LLP members have deferred while the partnership tax treatment was in force are brought back into charge when the LLP goes into liquidation. Under Sections 152 to 154 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act, LLP members will be able to defer gains realised on the disposal of business assets where the proceeds from the disposal have been used to acquire assets used in the trade carried on by the LLP. New Section 156A of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 inserted by this amendment ensures that immediately before the LLP goes into liquidation a member who has deferred gains in this way becomes liable to pay the tax due on the deferred gain. Although the assets concerned are then under the control of the liquidator, it would not be appropriate for the charge to fall on them. This is because claims for this relief would have been made by the LLP members on an individual basis and the gains concerned may have arisen on assets outside the LLP. This measure is necessary to ensure that tax that has been deferred is brought back into charge on the members who would have originally been liable to that tax. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Stamp duty]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 32, leave out ("immediately before its incorporation") and insert— ("at the relevant time").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15 to 17. It may be that some property of the former partnership is transferred to the LLP after incorporation, but before it acquires the former partnership's business. During this interim period, the previous partnership may continue trading and hence acquire new assets, such as debts due from its customers or clients. The technical changes made by these amendments put beyond doubt that, as intended, such assets will come within the scope of the relief, provided that the conditions are met. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos, 15 to 17:
Page 6, line 35, leave out ("subscribe their names to the incorporation document") and insert ("are or are to be members of the limited liability partnership").
Page 6, line 43, leave out ("immediately before its incorporation") and insert ("at the relevant time").
Page 7, line 5, at end insert—
("() In this section "the relevant time" means—

(a) if the person who conveyed or transferred the property to the limited liability partnership acquired the property after its incorporation, immediately after he acquired the property, and

(b) in any other case, immediately before its case, incorporation.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
CLASS 4 NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS
(". In section 15 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and section 15 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (Class 4 contributions), after subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) Where income tax is (or would be) charged on a member of a limited liability partnership in respect of profits or gains arising from the carrying on of a trade or profession by the limited liability partnership, Class 4 contributions shall be payable by him if they would be payable were the trade or profession carried on in partnership by the members."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19. These are both technical amendments. Between them, they ensure that members of LLPs who are taxed on their share of the LLP profits as though they were partners in a conventional partnership will also be charged Class IV national insurance contributions on that profit share. That reflects the position for self-employed people and partners generally. The new clause has been welcomed by consultees. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Commencement, extant and short title]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 9, line 36. leave out (" 12") and insert ("(Class 4 national insurance contributions)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Schedule [Names and registered offices]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 10, line 13, at end insert—
("() When the name of the limited liability partnership ends with the abbreviation "llp" or "LLP" any notepaper, invoice, circular or other communication in whatever medium shall legibly state thereon that it is "a limited liability partnership".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should apologise at once for chickening out of an attempt to table an amendment to incorporate the Welsh version as well. However, I hope that if the Government accept this amendment, they will bring in the necessary linguistic means to complete its effect. Before I go any further, I add my thanks to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for the assistance given by the Government to myself and colleagues on these Benches in arriving today with as much help as they have been able to give.
This amendment is simple but important. I believe that it is necessary on grounds of public protection. The word "limited" in relation to a limited liability company and the requirement for any but a public company to have the word "limited" or the letters "Ltd" after its title are, I believe, now generally understood by the public. However, it takes an awfully long time—not merely decades—for the man and woman in the street to latch on to even the simplicities of company law. I believe, too, that the word "partnership" is broadly understood, as is the difference between "partnership" and "company".
We have two particular problems: first, the limited liability partnership is a brand new corporate animal; and secondly, it has a kind of hybrid feel to it. One of the drawbacks in terms of public understanding of what is going on is that the word "partnership" remains in the Bill's title and the letters "LLP" contain, obviously, the word "partnership". Indeed, it is predictable that members of LLPs will refer to themselves as partners. They will talk about "the partnership". They will say, "My partner did this" or "My partner did that".
I believe that, at least for a period—perhaps 10 years, but perhaps permanently—if LLPs do not set out in full the words, "limited liability partnership", after their name, they should be required to put the words in full at the bottom of their notepaper, etc, in much the same way as they are required to do for their registered company, the place of incorporation, their registered number, and so on. Without it, I believe that there will be serious confusion. By means of this Bill we are bestowing a tremendous privilege upon firms which translate from partnerships into LLPs. Therefore, in order to protect the public,

877
I believe that the least requirement on those firms should be the provision set out in the amendment.
I wish to make one other point. Today, the talk has been largely about the large professional partnerships. I have absolutely no doubt that they will not be a problem in terms of this amendment. Indeed, most of the firms that I am aware of which are likely to use this route are already so well off that the chances of them going bust and leaving Mrs Smith and Mr Jones short of a penny or two is fanciful. I am concerned about the many, many companies that will in future be formed as LLPs rather than limited companies. The very fact that, constitutionally speaking, they are a light structure—that is, that the requirements for registration and the formalities of running an LLP are so much lighter than for a limited company—is in my view likely to make them a favourite resource for companies in the future. I refer to the small companies which give trouble and which in large numbers lead men and women to lose money that they can ill afford.
For a long time, I have been in the lucky position of giving advice to the public through BBC2. It is a very good vantage point from which to see the real problems that afflict so-called ordinary people. Should anyone have any doubt, believe me, a very serious problem of cynicism exists towards the law in relation to the effectiveness of the wrongful trading provisions. Quite simply, it does not work. The complexity and cost of pursuing directors to make them personally liable for debts for which, patently, they should be personally liable is such that it is rarely done. In that respect, prevention is a good deal better than cure. I believe that this small amendment, which, I suggest, will cause no problem to a bona fide LLP, will go some way towards addressing the problem that I have tried to describe. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am aware of the concern expressed by the noble Lord; that is, that some people will be unfamiliar with the concept of LLPs. I share that concern. We have always intended to apply Sections 351A and 351B of the Companies Act 1985, which require LLPs to mention on all business letters and order forms the place of registration, the registration number and the address of the registered office. However, I can say to the noble Lord that we shall amend that by inserting a new subsection (c) to require firms which use the abbreviation "LLP" after their names to mention on their business letters and order forms that they are limited liability partnerships. Therefore, those who do business with an LLP will be given notice that they are dealing with an entity of that kind. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for agreeing to that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 2000
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 laid before the House on 28th February be approved. Details of the sums sought are given in the Spring Supplementary Estimates booklet and the Statement of Sums required on Account, which have been placed in the Library of the House and are available from the Printed Paper Office.
I regret that this legislation is before the House today instead of being considered by locally elected representatives within the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, while we await the restoration of the Assembly, it is our responsibility to see that good government is maintained. Once again, we must ask Parliament to deal with issues such as appropriation. Of course, that should be one of the most important tasks for the Assembly, which was about to embark upon it when the suspension began. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me when I say that we all hope that it will not be too long before the Assembly is restored on a permanent basis and the benefits of a devolved administration will he fully realised by the people of Northern Ireland and beyond.
If I am unable to provide detailed answers to points raised at the end of the debate, I shall, of course, respond in writing. However, I must advise your Lordships that the Government cannot account for the policy decisions which were taken by the Executive Committee and its members during the period of devolution. I would remind your Lordships that the draft order does not cover expenditure by the Northern Ireland Office on law and order services.
Unfortunately, the Assembly was still in the process of scrutinising budget proposals for the coming financial year when it was suspended. Consideration of the annual Budget, which the Assembly has the right to modify, is one of its key tasks. By approving the Vote on Account today, this House would not necessarily be pre-empting the decision of the Assembly about the final allocations for 2000–01, since less than half the total proposed budget is being sought in the draft order. However, budget holders in the health service, in schools and all other key public services in Northern Ireland have to plan and commit resources now if they are to be able to discharge their responsibilities properly. They are presently working with the executive budget proposals which were presented to the Assembly in December on a provisional basis, and this will continue to be the case. The longer restoration is delayed, therefore, the less opportunity there will be for the Assembly to modify spending plans, since the resources will effectively have been allocated.
The draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise expenditure of f 193 million in the 1999–2000 Spring Supplementary Estimates. To a large extent

879
this reflects recent decisions taken by the Northern Ireland Executive Committee and will bring total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to £7,595 million for this financial year. The second purpose is to authorise the Vote on Account of £3,539 million for 2000–01. In general, this has been calculated as 45 per cent of the anticipated net 2000–01 Main Estimates provision contained within the Budget proposals. This will enable the services of Northern Ireland departments to continue until the 2000–01 Main Estimates are approved—it is hoped—by the Assembly later this year.
With your Lordships' permission, I now turn to the main areas where supplementary provision is sought. Some of the votes seek token increases only because new pressures have been offset by reduced requirements elsewhere within the same votes.
In Vote 1, which provides for Northern Ireland expenditure on national agriculture support measures, a net addition of £10.5 million is sought. That includes £8.5 million in respect of the Special Aid Package payable under the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances and £2 million is to cover higher than anticipated demand for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme. A further £4.1 million is in respect of agri-monetary compensation for the beef sector and £3.5 million is for Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances. Agri-monetary compensation is designed to offset the effects of currency appreciation on agricultural support prices and compensation payments which are set in euros.
In Vote 2 covering local agriculture support measures, a net increase of £5.4 million is sought. That includes £10.2 million in respect of controlling outbreaks of animal diseases, including tuberculosis and brucellosis. The additions are partially offset by reduced requirements elsewhere within the vote.
Token increases of £1,000 are sought in Votes 3, 4 and 5, covering economic development and training. In Vote 3, some £13.3 million is sought by the Industrial Development Board to meet pressures on industrial development grants from increased claims from client companies. A further £1 million is sought for industrial development promotion, to allow the Industrial Development Board to build on the success of its overseas marketing campaign and to maintain the momentum in promoting Northern Ireland as a good and competitive investment location. Those increases are offset by reduced requirements and additional receipts elsewhere within the vote.
A token £1,000 is also sought in Vote 4. Within the vote, which covers other economic support measures, administration, energy and miscellaneous services" increased requirements are offset by savings elsewhere. Additions sought include £0.5 million to assist with the setting up costs associated with the new Equality Commission and to meet pressures within the Office of the Industrial and Fair Employment Tribunals.
In Vote 5, covering the Training and Employment Agency, a token increase of £1,000 is sought. That, as in Vote 4, involves increases sought being offset by reduced requirements and additional receipts. The
880
adjustments include a redistribution of resources within the New Deal to meet changing demands and pressures.
I turn to Vote 7. A net increase of some £1 million is sought. The main increases are some £6 million for roads maintenance and £2 million for capital expenditure on the Vehicle Information System of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. There is also increased provision for Northern Ireland Railways and for works at St Angelo Airport in Fermanagh, as well as additional running costs for roads service. Those increases are largely offset by reduced requirements and increased receipts elsewhere within the vote.
In Vote 10, a net increase of some £8 million is sought for increased expenditure on urban regeneration, assistance to Omagh District Council for costs incurred following from the tragic bombing, as well as additional running costs brought forward from 1998–99 under end year flexibility arrangements. Those increases are partially offset by additional receipts.
I now turn to Vote 12, covering expenditure on education and related services, where a net increase of some £53 million is sought. That is mainly due to a reduction of £70 million in receipts previously forecast as a result of the third UK sale of student loan debt not proceeding. I should add that the Treasury has made good the resulting deficit from the Reserve so there is no loss to public services in Northern Ireland. In addition, there are increases of £3.9 million for school and library books; £3.5 million for school and further education maintenance; £2.8 million for tuition fees and grants to students; and £2.6 million for the Odyssey Millennium Landmark Project. Those increases are partially offset by a reduced requirement of £11 million on student loans; and a reduced requirement of £4.5 million on the European Union Peace and Reconciliation Programme.
In Vote 14, a net increase of £58.6 million is sought for expenditure on hospital, community health and personal social services, health and social services trusts, family health services and certain other services. That includes £23.9 million carried forward from 1998–99 under end year flexibility arrangements, £20.3 million towards winter and other pressures, £9.4 million for capital expenditure and £5 million for the meningitis vaccine programme.
In Vote 16, additional net provision of £9.1 million is sought for expenditure on certain miscellaneous health and personal social services costs. That includes £8.5 million for the European Union Peace and Reconciliation Programme and £0.4 million for grants to community groups funded by the ERDF.
Additional net provision of £10.5 million is sought in Vote 17 to meet administration and other miscellaneous costs. That includes £12.3 million to fund running costs, capital and other administration pressures in the department. The increases are offset by an increase of receipts of 1.8 million, mainly from the Department of Social Security for administering certain services on its behalf.
In Vote 19, which covers social security that is centrally administered, £12.9 million is sought mainly to meet higher than anticipated expenditure on housing benefit and increased payments into the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund in respect of the statutory sick and statutory maternity payments. Those increased requirements are offset by reduced requirements elsewhere within the vote.
Finally, there is also additional provision of £4.4 million for the Northern Ireland Assembly. That increase is to allow the Assembly to begin to implement the recommendations of the Assembly Commission, which examined the resources the Assembly will require in order to discharge its functions fully. However, I must advise your Lordships that, during suspension, the Northern Ireland Act 2000 requires the cost of the Assembly to be met directly from a Northern Ireland Office vote. That is put before Parliament as part of the approval process for UK supply estimates, a completely separate procedure from today's business. That arrangement will continue until the suspension is lifted, at which time the Assembly will revert to taking its funding from the provision sought under this order. We have, of course, had to provide for the Assembly in the draft order in order to facilitate a speedy return to devolution.
I should point out to your Lordships that both the supplementary estimates and the vote on account are based on proposals made by the devolved administration in Northern Ireland before suspension. Those proposals have not been modified or extended. I hope that that short summary of the main components of the estimates is helpful. I commend the order to your Lordships.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, we are at some small disadvantage as a result of delays in terms of both availability of documents and of short notice. I do not attach any blame to Ministers or to the Department of Finance and Personnel. Your Lordships will be aware of certain little difficulties elsewhere.
It seems appropriate that we should calmly examine government expenditure in Northern Ireland against a more settled background than would have been the case, say, a year ago. In Northern Ireland there is a sense of relief and a degree of normality resulting from an absence of media bombardment which, for the past three years, had the effect of "setting the children's teeth on edge". People are now concentrating on those matters which they judge to be important in everyday life. They are not going to thank any party which endeavours to hoist them and their Province back on to yet another high profile, high wire act. Politicians north and south would do well to heed Clem Attlee's directive:
"A period of silence would be welcome".
The debate provides an opportunity to focus attention on the financial realities that are block allocations from the Treasury and products of the
882
annual public expenditure survey by the major Whitehall departments. It follows that the most any devolved assembly can do is to plead a special case which may of course be valid in all three devolved regions. At present and for decades past, all three devolved regions benefited through the Barnett formula benefit per capita to a greater extent than the United Kingdom in general and England in particular. In their own local interest, I must say that those three devolved regions—and London's elections are coming up, which is an unknown quantity—must take great care to avoid upsetting that well tried formula.
The Secretary of State in all three regions occupies the key role because he has the discretion to allocate the block between services in response to local needs and priorities. Junior Ministers apply great pressure to the Secretary of State and the overall department. We have two representatives of that band present tonight: the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Patten, who have treated their responsibilities to the departments under their control and fought their corner with great sensitivity and determination. I want to pay tribute to them and to some of their predecessors.
However, to a great extent, one of the main Northern Ireland departments is not quite so closely bound by the restrictions of the block. That is the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, which features in Votes 1 and 2 on both parts of the appropriation order. In the Barnett formula of 1978, agriculture was—and still is—in a kind of semi-detached position. I am grateful for the clarity with which the position is set out in the statement of sums, which tends to confirm that semi-detached status. But, since then, agriculture has been affected by membership of a far greater authority: the Common Market: now the European Union. I said that agriculture has been affected by that body, but I should have said "disastrously affected" by the European Union.
There is the need now for a genuine opportunity to reprioritise government support for Northern Ireland agriculture relative to its much greater importance to the Province's economy as compared with any part of Great Britain. Government assistance is imperative in the immediate and short term to secure the very survival of Northern Ireland agriculture. The ongoing Ulster Farmers Union campaign has secured widespread acceptance from both political representatives and the general public throughout Northern Ireland. It has convinced them that the agricultural crisis is extremely real and that urgent assistance needs to be provided. Nothing more can be done on what one might term a "Northern Ireland only" basis. We are now totally dependent on the Treasury and Downing Street for progress to provide the necessary short-and immediate-term assistance for the general UK-wide crisis in agriculture.
One must ask what short term assistance is necessary. It would appear to fall under two crucial areas identified by the Ulster Farmers Union and by many other bodies with farming interests. The first is urgent assistance for the pig sector—a situation made far worse by the closure of one of the major plants only

883
this weekend. Secondly, there is the provision of all agri-monetary compensation available to UK agriculture in the year 2000: beef, £135 million; cereals, £169 million; dairy, £28 million; sheep, £67 million; and sugar, £3 million, making a total of £402 million.
What is the state of Northern Ireland's agriculture? The agri-food industry is still the largest single industry in Northern Ireland, accounting for 10 per cent of employment and 7 per cent of the gross domestic product. In Northern Ireland the agri-food industry is almost three times as important as at the UK level. The industry is still the main driving force in the rural economy of the whole of Northern Ireland. Over the past five years, some £756 million has been removed from the economy of the Province as a result of various crises in agriculture. The annual total farm income has plummeted by 79 per cent in real terms to £71 million in the same period.
A recently produced Eurostat report shows that in the period 1995–98 agricultural producer prices in the United Kingdom have fallen by much more than in any other member state of the European Union. Provisional figures for 1999–2000 indicate average net farm income to be minus £700. In 1999 Northern Ireland farm incomes fell by 23 per cent in real terms compared with 1 per cent in real terms in the UK as a whole. That is surely a shattering fact. Now farmers are in a situation of owing £520 million to banks alone and that sum continues to grow. A deadline of the end of April exists for the United Kingdom Government formally to request from the European Union its allocation of virtually all the available agri-monetary compensation for the livestock sectors.
The message from the Northern Ireland farming community is that there is urgent need for the provision of short-term assistance to secure the survival of Northern Ireland's agriculture industry.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I rise with some temerity to support my right honourable friend—I use that phrase with care—the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead. He has told your Lordships that after recent months he felt that peace and quiet and above all silence from politicians on this side of the water was called for. I hope that he will allow me to break that Trappist silence to support him. I know that he feels that in the past 35 years one of the endemic problems in the politics of the Province has been that dreaded word "initiative", and that one initiative piled upon another by people of good intention has often not only failed to produce results but made matters worse.
My right honourable friend the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has given us one clear initiative tonight that the Minister and her colleagues could take to heart: to achieve by the end of April the aim that the noble Lord has pressed upon the House this evening. Uniquely—again I choose that word carefully—agriculture has an extraordinary place in the economy and society of Northern Ireland, more than in any other part of the United Kingdom.
884
I do not know how hopeful I should be in making the request that a useful initiative would help the agriculture industry and agri-business in the Province. I come from the West Country of England, where recently we had a visit from someone who pressed a telescope with Nelsonian indifference to his eye, saw no crisis about him and went away again. I do not believe that anyone could visit the Province, look at the agri-business and see anything other than crisis. The terrible situation among pig farmers in the Province deserves urgent consideration for a host of reasons one of which is that those devotees of the Ulster fry in the morning—of which I am one—still want a supply available to fuel their plates.
I believe that there is an opportunity for something to be done which is not only right for the economy and the society of the Province, but may also help measured and careful future political development there. Where there is poverty there is trouble. There was trouble in the 18th century when a pike was hidden in every thatch and there is in the early 21st century when there are too many Armalites in too many attics. I believe that the Minister could do a lot to reassure the people of the Province and aid its careful, slow and measured political development by listening to what my right honourable friend the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, had to say tonight.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I hope that we shall pass this appropriation order. However, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, referred to the Barnett formula. I believe an English backlash is growing not just in Northern Ireland, but also in other devolved areas. In a year's time when an order such as this comes before the House, it may not receive the reception that I want it to receive tonight. In voting for this order we urge the politicians of Northern Ireland to get their act together so that they can proceed in a peaceful manner and so that external investment will continue to flow in at the rate that it has, because unless there is a settlement that will come to a sudden and juddering halt.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for so clearly presenting this order. It is sad on two counts. First, it is sad that we are debating it at all. Secondly, it is equally sad because it is a comprehensive order, the most important financial order for Northern Ireland in the year. We have not had adequate time in which to do it justice. It is well laid out, but there must be many questions that need to be asked.
On the positive side, I hope I understood right that the Minister has not committed the total Vote and that should the Assembly be resumed shortly, it will have an opportunity to re-run this debate and do with the block grant what it wants. That is very important. Northern Ireland has gone a long way down the road of deciding how it wishes to spend the money for its electorate. I sincerely hope that this situation will not recur.

885
However, the Northern Ireland economy is in as balanced a situation as its politics and is probably as dependent upon success in the major political scene for its future as it is on what we talk about tonight. There are crises. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has outlined clearly the plight of the farmers, in which connection I must declare an interest. I understand that our fishermen have had their cod quotas reduced and that French fishermen are benefiting from their waters. If that is true, it cannot be right.
Our shipyard has been the leading company in international endeavour for probably 100 years and was once the largest shipyard in the world, but it is once again in serious danger of dying. However, the company has great opportunities and is currently negotiating, critically and vitally, to win orders to fill that yard again. Are the Government using all endeavours to afford the shipyard the best possible opportunity? I understand that funding of up to 9 per cent is allowable in assisting such a contract.
I hope that Ministers will act quickly and sensibly to attend to the vacuum created by the Executive and to any crises as they arise. Although in UK terms, little crises in the Northern Ireland economy may seem small, they can be of critical future importance to the well-being of the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I welcome the opening statement by the Minister, especially her hope that peaceful trends will prevail. The people of Northern Ireland earnestly seek, with honour, trust and good will, to establish a form of government as set down for the Assembly.
Although it is a matter that is outside the Minister's control, I should have preferred the draft order to have been duly tabled and considered by elected representatives in another place first. However, the opening statements have been very constructive and positive.
I find it difficult to accept this appropriation order in the light of years of experience on the Opposition Benches in dealing with expenditure and the various developments that took place.
It is necessary to refer to three documents. The first is the Northern Ireland Act 1974 which sets out the background and shows why the appropriation order had to be presented at this time in this manner. In relation to expenditure, it is necessary to look not only at the appropriation order but also at the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 1999–2000.
There are two matters that touch on the point of principle that I should like to develop. Paragraph 12 on page 7 relates to expenditure on education in schools. We see there a figure of £53 million, which is a decrease of approximately £68 million. I looked at the Supplementary Estimates to see why that reduction has taken place. On page 45 the reduction is stated to be mainly due to a reduction of planned spending of £4 million as the result of the non-availability of receipts from the sale of the Belfast Port. The Minister has already referred to that point.
886
Paragraph 5 refers to a reduced requirement of £5 million-plus being mainly due to a reduction of planned spending of £2 million-plus as a result of the non-availability of receipts from the sale of Belfast Airport; a transfer of £2 million to sub-head (2) for education technology, and a reduced requirement of £24,000 in respect of the Making Belfast Work Initiative. Why has that situation arisen? Is it sound or practical to build a budget on that basis?
Page 9 of the appropriation order deals with expenditure for the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is an increase on the original estimate. In the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates on page 79 approval is sought for various changes in relation to additional staff salaries and recruitment costs of over £600,000; additional Members' and office holders' salaries of £500,000; a party allowance of £400,000; and road, security, cleaning and catering costs of £1.5 million.
I do not understand how those figures can be presented at a time when Northern Ireland is trying to fulfil the housing, transport development and educational needs of ordinary working people.
I do not wish to close the door on a sad note or a highly critical note. I know that the Government have tried to deal with the affairs of Northern Ireland in a liberal manner. But at the same time, this appropriation order requires acute examination that cannot be done in one sweep in this House.
I thank the Minister for the way in which she presented the order. The burden she carries in this connection would be much less if it had been presented in the other place first, instead of in this House.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I share my noble friend's regret that we are debating this order at all. We hoped fervently that these matters would stay with the Assembly in Belfast. I feel also that this procedure is not entirely satisfactory, even if we have to conduct the business here. Frankly, noble Lords asking questions, which are answered by the Box passing messages to the Minister or the Minister writing in response, is not the best method of dealing with these matters. I am sure that a better procedure could be devised, though we hope that we shall not have to deal with appropriation orders in the future. There are better ways in which to debate these matters, ask questions and obtain the answers than this cumbersome way via secondary legislation.
I have sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in relation to the state of Northern Ireland agriculture. This is not necessarily the appropriate time to debate those issues, but I share his concern about the dreadful situation facing farmers, including the hard-hit pig farmers, at the present time. I am not sure that there could be much in this appropriation order which would make a difference. As the noble Lord suggested. we must look to Brussels and possibly even MAFF for some easement, not to decisions made in Belfast.
I should like to raise a few issues, one or two of which have been referred to, which underlie some of the figures that we have been debating this evening.

887
The first concerns the difficulties as regards Belfast Harbour. I wonder whether my noble friend can throw a little more light on the timing as regards the plans to privatise the harbour, which have been somewhat delayed for reasons some of which I am familiar with and others which have arisen more recently. But they cast a dark shadow over any spending plans in Northern Ireland because it meant that some items of expenditure had to be deferred on the assumption that the harbour will be sold before too long. Perhaps my noble friend can say something about the assumptions underlying the failure so far to make much progress in selling Belfast Harbour.
Secondly, and importantly, it is likely that Belfast Harbour is worth a lot more than the £70 million that we have been discussing. Although I am sure that my noble friend cannot give any assurances from the Front Bench today, I hope that when the harbour is sold for a sum in excess of £70 million, all that money will stay in Northern Ireland; that the Treasury will not get its hands on the difference between £70 million and the amount the harbour fetches and claw it back. The wealth of the harbour comes from the efforts of people in Northern Ireland their industry, commitment and hard work. It is only proper that wealth created in Northern Ireland should stay in Northern Ireland for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. My noble friend probably cannot say much about that and I do not want to tempt her into a discussion about it. But that needs to be said for the record.
As I understand it, one consequence of not having that £70 million—or whatever greater sum it might be is that the roads programme has not proceeded as we hoped following the Chancellor's initiative a couple of years ago. Perhaps my noble friend can say a little more about what happened to some of the road schemes which were so eagerly sought after by district councils and others throughout Northern Ireland and which I suspect now have had to be delayed.
My noble friend referred to the costs of the Assembly. I hope she can assure us that in the figures for next year we assume that the Assembly will be going from the beginning, and that we are not writing into the figures any assumption about savings through the Assembly not functioning. The message that has to go out and that has gone out through some of the speeches this evening, is that we want the Assembly back in operation as soon as possible and therefore we do not want to look at savings which may make it more difficult for the Assembly to get restarted.
I have a few other points that I want to raise briefly. One concerns the water industry and capital expenditure on water and sewerage in Northern Ireland—an area which has seen too little spending over many years. I should like an assurance that the high levels of spending envisaged will go on being achieved in so far as this is not a matter that will go back to the Assembly in Belfast; in other words, that we are working on the assumption that the higher levels of spending will taker place whether it be from public expenditure or income from the regional rates.
888
My next point concerns public transport, again an area which has been under-resourced for a long time in Northern Ireland. Can my noble friend say anything about the needs of the railways and the buses and whether they can be met by some further increments in public expenditure, public-private partnerships or through PFI'? Is there any difficulty in applying PFI? Is there a legislative basis for it? It is a matter of seeing by what combination of means further capital spending can be achieved in both the railways and bus services of Northern Ireland.
Lastly, I want to raise a point about which I failed to give my noble friend notice earlier as I did with the other points. St. Angelo Airport was mentioned. Can she say anything about the plans to develop Londonderry Airport? It is much needed. I am not aware of what the latest position is but I know that some contribution has been made from the Republic. It will make an interesting and helpful package for the economic development of the north-west of Northern Ireland and indeed of Donegal. If my noble friend is not able to give me the answers today, perhaps she will be kind enough to write to me.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, identified a crucial issue with regard to funding for Northern Ireland in that the Barnett formula largely removes the need for detailed negotiation with Her Majesty's Treasury on spending needs. It is a transparent mechanism that enables allocations to be scrutinised. Expenditure per head in Northern Ireland remains significantly above that in England, reflecting relative need.
The noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux, Lord Patten and Lord Glentoran, raised the issue of agrimoney compensation. We are aware of the tremendous pressure to do something for the agricultural sector in Northern Ireland. Incomes have fallen by a further 22 per cent in the past year whereas they appear to have stabilised in the rest of the UK. We recognise the funding difficulties, but payment of compensation cannot proceed on a regional basis. The UK agriculture Ministers discussed agrimoney compensation on a number of occasions, including most recently at their meeting on 10th February this year. In 1999 a total of £ 16.8 million agrimoney compensation was provided to farmers in Northern Ireland. Further assistance will also be available over the next two years. Future assistance to the farming industry in the UK will need to be looked at in the context of the next spending review.
The noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux, my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also raised the issue of the crisis in the pig industry. We recognise that that industry is facing difficulties across the UK. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that the whole Government, including my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, recognise the problems facing agriculture. The Government are doing what they can within the rules on state aids.

889
Special assistance has been given to Northern Ireland pig farmers to compensate them for the immediate effect of loss through fire of a major processing plant. A sum of £400,000 has been made available to promote pigmeat sales. In this, I concur with the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Patten. A cross-border study of the pig industry has been set up and will report before the summer. The Government will study that report extremely carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised the matter of Harland and Wolff and the negotiations with Carnival and with Cunard. We appreciate the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. Negotiations are continuing between Harland and Wolff and the Carnival Corporation of the USA. Officials at the Industrial Development Board are in close contact with senior management at Harland and Wolff and with the DTI in relation to the company's bid for the contract to build the new liner. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government will do everything in their power to be of assistance.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also raised the issue of the Irish Sea cod recovery plan. We sympathise with whitefish fishermen who have to forgo their traditional spring cod fishing. However, the cod must be allowed to spawn during this period. Prawn fishing will continue without serious restrictions, affording continuity of supplies to the important processing industry in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Blease spoke of justification for the costs of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Assembly commission has estimated that the required expenditure of the new Assembly is necessary if the Assembly can resume its business. I believe that we would regard that as money well spent.
I thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for giving me advance notice of several points that he wished to raise. Both he and my noble friend Lord Blease asked about progress on the sale of Belfast Port and the financial implications for improvements to Northern Ireland's roads network. The position on the sale of the port is that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners have now published their revised PPP proposal, but have not yet submitted their transfer scheme to the department. The Assembly Minister for the Department of Regional Development recently submitted an options paper on the future of the port to the Regional Development Committee. If the sale of the port does not proceed, it is possible that there will be an impact on the roads programme. I would expect the consequent implications to be a matter for consideration by the Executive Committee and the Assembly. If the sale does not proceed, the allocation of receipts to spending programmes would also be a matter for those bodies. My noble friend Lord Dubs also raised the issue of what would happen were there to be in excess of £70 million from the sale of the port. We are aware of general concern on this point. Discussions are proceeding with the Treasury. However, it is important not to hold up the sale.
890
My noble friend also raised the question of the cost of the Assembly and possible savings arising as a result of the suspension. If devolution is not restored during this financial year, it is estimated that expenditure on the Northern Ireland Assembly will reduce by some £2 million in 1999–2000. Savings next year will, of course, depend on the date of the restoration. However, along with my noble friend Lord Blease, I can reassure my noble friend that we all seek restoration of the Assembly.
My noble friend Lord Dubs mentioned the issue of investment through the use of PPPs and PFIs to support investment in the railways and buses. I am pleased to be able to advise him that present investment in public transport services includes the purchase of 130 new low-floor buses at a cost of £15 million, reinstatement of the Antrim to Bleach Green railway line, costing £17 million, and the provision of the Bangor integrated transport centre, costing £4 million. Pending the development of PPP options for public transport, £5 million is being made available subject to a satisfactory investment appraisal to begin to address the rolling stock needs of the railway. We are also conscious of the potential contribution which PPPs could make to public transport and a review of possible PPP opportunities in public transport services has recently been completed. The conclusion and recommendations of the review are currently under consideration. It is expected that a decision on the way forward can be taken soon.
My noble friend made the point that public expenditure plans for Northern Ireland announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review included an assumed increase in revenue from the regional rate. One of the beneficiaries of the additional spending is, as he said, water and sewerage services, where significant increases in expenditure amounting to £85 million over three years are planned to help to meet European Union drinking water and waste water quality standards. Future spending on water and sewerage needs to be considered alongside other priorities in the next spending review.
My noble friend Lord Blease raised the question of a decrease of £68 million in the Department of Education estimate. The bulk of the £68 million decrease is the reduction of £70 million in receipts as a result of the third UK sale of student loan debt not proceeding. I can assure my noble friend that the resultant shortfall has been made good by the Treasury.
My noble friend Lord Dubs raised the issue of the City of Derry airport runway improvements. A final decision on whether to provide the city council with additional grant assistance to cover the cost overrun on the runway project has not yet been taken. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the Government will, at all times, act sensitively and quickly in reaction to crises in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, expressed very well the view that peace is the best means of ensuring

891
inward investment and economic redevelopment. Political success is vital, as my noble friend Lord Blease said.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right to say that, should the Assembly be resumed shortly, it will resume responsibility with the appropriate level of funding within the budget left for it to determine. Several noble Lords have referred to the short period of time to consider the detail of this order. In commending it to your Lordships, I undertake to reply to any further questions submitted in writing. I join all noble Lords in hoping that the situation in Northern Ireland will improve and that this order will not need to be repeated in your Lordships' House. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Southern Observatory
8.28 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw Lord Tanlaw rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to allow expeditious participation in the European Southern Observatory (ESO).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I must congratulate the Minister who is to reply this evening on his stamina. He has had a busy evening so far. I am also grateful to the Government for allowing me time—which will be the minimum possible—to raise the important question of British astronomers' participation in the European Southern Observatory's very large telescope situated in Chile on the high mountaintop of Cerro Paranal, which is famous for the transparency of its atmosphere.
However, one thing must be remembered about all astronomers, which is that size does matter! Throughout the history of astronomy, from Newton to Herschel, Eddington, Jeans, Airy, Lord Rosse, up to and including present-day astronomers and cosmologists such as Hoyle, Hawking and Rees, it is the quality and size of the telescope to which they have access which eventually governs the quality and scope of their work.
I am sure that the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate will recall that it was the great British astronomer William Herschel who discovered the planet Uranus in 1781 with his own telescope, which he built in his back garden. In fact, King George III was so impressed that he provided adequate funds for him to build the world's largest telescope in order that an improved lens and a larger 40-foot reflecting mirror might lead to more exciting discoveries of this nature in and around the solar system.
I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that patrons or sponsors have always been required in the field of astronomy since the days of King Charles II. I am also certain that he will agree that they are needed today more than ever, as the science and technology involved is more complex and expensive, as it is in the ESO which will be a co-ordinated array of four 8-metre optical telescopes.
Once the ESO (the European Southern Observatory) becomes operational, it will be the world's largest terrestrial telescope. Other countries, including Japan, having given up their own national efforts in this area are subscribing instead to the ESO. This is because it will be the only ground-based telescope capable of distinguishing and studying planets circling at least 100 neighbouring stars similar to our own sun. Further, when it is fully operational, there will be the exciting prospect of astronomers being able to distinguish over the next 20 years not only the type of atmosphere but even the shape of the continents and the size of the oceans on these distant worlds.
Unfortunately, none of those astronomers will be British that is, if this country fails to subscribe, with our European partners, in the setting-up costs of this incredible telescope. In effect, this will mean that astronomy will hardly be worth pursuing as a career in Britain in the new millennium. Does the Minister agree that this will be a most unsatisfactory situation, especially in view of what the Government say about the need to encourage science in our schools, coupled with their apparent keenness to participate in Europe?
I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that it is not the intention of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) to destroy the future prospects of British astronomy. But when its director reduces British astronomers' access to very large telescopes to a mere 3 per cent over the 10-year period 1995 to 2005, does the Minister accept that it will have the same effect? Perhaps the noble Lord will think about it for a moment. Is this not a rather strange decision in view of PPARC's own consultation document which showed that increased access to very large telescopes was regarded as the top priority within astronomy?
I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the United Kingdom now has less access to very large telescopes than any other major European country. Indeed, there are a number of universities in the United States that are prepared to pay for more access time to large telescopes than the meagre ration that PPARC has allocated to British astronomers out of its annual budget of £230 million.
The Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, recently made the same point when he addressed the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Astronomy and Space Environment, of which I am proud to be the founder-chairman. He reminded our group that there was a time in 1990 when British astronomers had 15 per cent of the world's time on large 4-metre telescopes, which was made possible by this country's share in the William Herschel Telescope at La Palma and in the Anglo-Australian Telescope at Parkes in New South Wales. British astronomers were able to make many important contributions to world astronomy during this period. However, now, observational opportunities to achieve this over the next 20 years will become a rarity due to the intended cut-back on access time to very large telescopes. Therefore, perhaps I may remind the Minister that size really does matter to astronomers.
How can this situation be remedied? Does the noble Lord agree that it could be remedied quite simply by paying up and joining in observation time available on the four 8-metre telescopes that comprise the European Southern Observatory in Chile? Coincidentally, the cost of this would be the same amount as was paid without a murmur to extend the shelf life of the Greenwich Dome by just another nine months.
Therefore, can the Minister say whether it would be acceptable to our European partners for this large sum of £60 million to be paid partly in kind and partly over an agreed period of time? Can the noble Lord say what efforts, if any, have been made by PPARC in this direction by offering, for example, European access to our VISTA survey telescope? Alternatively, will the noble Lord state quite clearly to our partners, who are becoming increasingly impatient with our attitude in this matter, our real intentions? Further, can he confirm that, if we do not make up our minds soon about the VLT in Chile. our partners may shut out British astronomers for good from the whole project?
Can the noble Lord also say what efforts, if any, are being made to find sponsors from the private sector for this exciting project? They might be more willing to support optical astronomical discoveries rather than invisible ones, which may one day be found in the particle physics accelerator at CERN.
Is this not a project for which the lottery might perhaps provide some backing? I believe that there is a genuine public interest in such matters, especially among young people. For instance, I asked the editor of Hello magazine—a publication more noted for its coverage of social rather than cosmic events—why she had recently devoted four colour pages to the work of the European Southern Observatory. She replied that the mostly young readership of about half a million was decidedly interested in, and excited by, present and future developments in space and in astronomy.
It was for that reason—the realisation that younger people are really excited about the future as regards what is going on in space—that it occurred to me that in the past parliamentarians have not been as excited as they should have been; nor, indeed, as well informed. Therefore, I created the All-Party Group for Astronomy and Space Environment in order to educate us and help us better to appreciate some of the things that are happening in nearby space. Because such things are happening many hundreds of thousands or millions of miles away. we should not think that they do not affect terrestrial life.
My group—I am sorry to go on talking about it—looks at the political, social and philosophical implications of what might happen if, for example, the sun were to create problems through an increase in its bombardment of the atmosphere of the earth with various and different rays. What might happen if incoming asteroids or comets either come close by or impact on the terrestrial surface?
There is also the question of global warming, which I raised in 1976 in this House, much to the amusement of noble Lords opposite and, indeed, to the
894
incomprehension of the noble Lords who were sitting on the Government Front Bench at the time. It took years for parliamentarians to appreciate that this was a political and social factor and one that probably affects our lives very considerably, especially when one sees the effects on Mozambique, the hurricanes that hit Venezuela and the extraordinary weather patterns. Not all of these phenomena are entirely due to man-made products, as one is inclined to think. The sun has a great deal to do with it, and we need to understand it more. Therefore, I am hopeful that the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate will be able to show more enthusiasm than that which is apparent at present from PPARC about our subscription to the very large telescope in Chile.
I shall be brief because it is a little late in the evening. I suggest merely that we cast our minds back to the 18th century when William Herschel, who built his telescope in his own backyard, discovered the planet Uranus. It was a thrilling and exciting moment for this country; and, indeed, the world. John Keats wrote a poem referring to Herschel. It is one that every schoolboy must remember and one that we all had to recite. On First Looking into Chapman's Homer. It states:
"Then I felt like some watcher of the skies [William Herschel] When a new planet swims into his ken".
We are not talking about planets of our solar system being observed by astronomers on the earth's surface; we are talking about planets of alien solar systems. What this will mean in terms of how we consider ourselves and how we consider the chemistry of the earth is something that we need to know about as soon as possible, and which we can know about.
I want a British astronomer to have another poem written about him when he sees something through this great telescope: but unless we do something about it now, this opportunity will be denied to us through a misunderstanding or through the parsimony of the Government because they feel that it may not be important.
I look forward to the Minister's reply which I hope will be slightly more enthusiastic than was the reply of his right honourable friend in another place when this matter was raised by Mr Tam Dalyell.
8.40 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, on securing a debate on this matter today. At the outset, and as the noble Lord has made so plain, it is worth remembering that our country has an especially honourable tradition in the field of astronomy. From Newton in the 17th century, through Herschel to Eddington, Jeans, Hoyle and Hawking in the 20th, British astronomers and cosmologists have changed the way we place ourselves in the universe.
As your Lordships will be aware, the European Southern Observatory was created in 1962 to,
"establish and operate an astronomical observatory in the Southern hemisphere. equipped with powerful instruments. with the aim of furthering and organising collaboration in astronomy"..

895
It is supported by eight countries: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. The UK was actively involved in the early discussions about the establishment of ESO in the 1950s but it was decided at that time not to join, partly because of our access to other astronomical facilities in Australia and South Africa.
But of course the world moves on. In the new millennium, optical astronomy is experiencing a boom and, at least in part, the UK is actively involved in that boom. The four-metre VISTA telescope is to be built—at, it has to be said, ESO's base in Chile—for a consortium of 18 British universities led by Dr Jim Emerson of Queen Mary and Westfield College. The UK Astronomy Technology Centre has been chosen as the project's managing organisation, responsible for the design, construction and commissioning of the telescope. Here I acknowledge the input of both the Joint Infrastructure Fund, which, as I understand it, is providing the necessary funding of some £22 million, and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC), which will underwrite the observatory's operating costs. More generally, it is important to acknowledge that UK involvement at the 4-metre level notably at La Palma in the Canaries, Hawaii, as well as in Australia and Chile—is robust.
But the difficulty, which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, highlights today, is that the UK has only a minor share in collaboration on the new breed of ground-based telescopes with 8-metre mirrors, where much of the cutting-edge research is being conducted. It is the case that we are involved in what Professor Roger L Davies and Dr Patrick Roche—project scientists with the UK Gemini Project—have described as,
"the remarkable success of the Gemini eight-metre telescopes project, which has already outperformed the Hubble Space Telescope at infra red wavelengths".
But they would say that, wouldn't they? However, as they go on to say,
"Without Gemini, UK astronomers would now have no prospect of being able to compete internationally. Joining the ESO would bring the provision of eight-metre telescopes to the level that UK astronomers enjoyed on four-metre aperture telescopes when these were forefront instruments, and restore our competitive position".
This is a view echoed by the Astronomer Royal, who has perhaps gone a little further by suggesting that PPARC, the funding body in this field, may be,
"seriously misjudging the balance of its scientific priorities",
by having devoted less than a tenth as much of its budget to large telescopes as it had to particle accelerators. But, to be fair, PPARC, at its annual strategy meeting on 19th and 20th February, noted that,
"The ground based astronomy community needed to gain more access to time on eight metre telescopes; (the UK would slip from being second in the world for access to four metre telescopes to fifteenth for eight metre telescopes)".
It went on to say,
"Council felt the advantage would be obtained from carrying these"—
that is, collaborations on larger arrays—
"out in a European framework".
896
As I have already implied, what is of particular significance to astronomers about ESO is the construction at their site at Cerro Paranal in Chile of a group of four 8-metre telescopes, called, unsurprisingly, the Very Large Telescope, or VLT, a precursor for the new generation of 30- to 50-metre arrays which are already scheduled to be built in the first decades of this century. Clearly there is strength in the argument that VLT has leapfrogged ESO ahead of the UK in the new era of big telescopes and that, unless we now join ESO, Britain faces relegation to the second division in astronomy.
This leads me to my first question for the Minister. Far be it from me to encourage the review culture of the current administration. I believe firmly that Ministers, on the basis of the evidence before them, should take their own decisions and thereby be accountable for them. But does the noble Lord accept that the time has come for the strategic focus of UK involvement in astronomy to be looked at? In particular, do the Government accept that our proliferation of collaborations on 4-metre arrays needs to be more appropriately balanced with new collaborations on 8-metre and larger arrays?
We should consider this matter in the context of the Government's overall philosophy. In his recent speech at the Smith Institute, the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined the Government's absolute commitment to the "knowledge-based economy". He stated,
"Now that the future is knowledge-based—e-shaped. if you like—we can already see the qualities needed for success: those countries that will succeed will he those that can best unleash the potential of their people by drawing on the qualities of creativity, flexibility and adaptability, the work ethic and of course an open and outward looking approach to the world".
In particular the Chancellor suggested that the Government,
"are discovering … new ways of harnessing our innate creativity and adaptability as a people",
and that they—that is, the Government—
"are keen that British universities build trans-Atlantic and trans-European alliances in research and commerce".
That is all good and well. Of course astronomy is by no means as fashionable as IT, the particular focus of the Chancellor's remarks. Nor does it have IT's public profile. But it is no less important for that. Certainly it does not stretch imagination or credibility to suppose that UK participation in ESO would be wholly consistent with the Government's general thrust here. Indeed, this is the crux of the matter before us today. If I can put it in a somewhat inelegant way, is the DTI prepared to put the science vote's money where the Chancellor of the Exchequer's mouth is?
Against that background, I am bound to say that I am a little surprised at the Written Answer to which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, referred of 1st February this year on what discussions had taken place with the authorities of ESO and governments of nations participating in ESO about UK involvement in the project. The Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry replied,
"Neither my right honourable Friend the Secretary of State nor my noble Friend the Minister for Science have had any discussions with the authorities of the European Southern Observatory (ESO),

897
or with Governments of ESO member states about UK participation in ESO'.—[Official Report. Commons, 1/212000; col. WA535.]
Of course, as I have already mentioned, funding of UK participation would be by the science vote through the budget of PPARC. But I hope that the Minister can confirm that this exasperating state of affairs has been rectified. It simply is not good enough for the Government to say that, because they have not received,
"any specific recommendations for Ministerial consideration".
from PPARC, that justifies them in doing nothing. After all, this administration prides itself on giving a lead, a lead which PPARC clearly needs. Its press release of 24th February, giving details of deliberations at the 29th Council meeting, states:
"Council recognised that UK membership of ESO was a potentially effective route to securing that advantage, but"—
this is the key point—
"considered that under present conditions and without additional resources membership could not be afforded".
What makes this all the more surprising—the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, alluded to this—is the decision, to which I have already referred, for VISTA to be hosted at Cerro Paranal by ESO. Self-evidently there is considerable government input to this project via the involvement of the joint infrastructure fund. I am therefore bound to ask the noble Lord whether, in arriving at this decision, any attempts were made to tie VISTA in to negotiations about possible UK participation in ESO. As I have said, VISTA is scheduled to cost some £22 million; not to use that cost as a possible mechanism to defray some of the £55 million entry costs to ESO seems, to say the least, strange. I look forward to the Minister's reply to this and to the other questions which have been posed today.
I conclude with this observation from a recent leader in The Times. It states:
"The money is not available in the PPARC budget, nor is the annual subscription of £11–12 million. By appealing to Lord Sainsbury, the Science Minister—
and, as an aside, it is a shame that the noble Lord is not here today—
"the astronomers are trying their luck in an atmosphere more favourable to science than for many years past. The astronomers' claims are strong and deserve support".
It would seem that both The Times and the field of astronomy are putting a great deal of faith in the Science Minister's willingness and ability to deliver.
8.51p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for initiating the debate and to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for his well-informed contribution. I am sorry that I am replying; the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, the Science Minister, is on duty in Portugal under the Portuguese presidency.
It is vital that the UK's astronomy community has access to the ground-based telescopes and to the other facilities that it needs to conduct its research. This is the only way that our researchers in the field can stay at the forefront of science and stay competitive with their peers in Europe and around the world.
898
These facilities are a major investment. Unfortunately they take many years to come to fruition. The availability of telescope time for our astronomers today reflects funding decisions and policy decisions taken in the Science and Engineering Research Council more than 10 years ago. The decisions that this Government make now will have an impact on scientists in this field for more than 20 years.
The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, PPARC, has the lead responsibility for identifying both the long-term and short-term facility needs of the astronomy community and for advising the Office of Science and Technology and the Government on the priority of those needs and how best to secure access to them.
PPARC is also the route by which the UK access to such large facilities is generally funded, whether by subscription to international projects, investment in our own infrastructure or by grants to individual researchers. I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who referred to the possibility of private sponsorship or of lottery funding, that historically—at least in recent years—astronomical and astrophysical research has largely been by way of public expenditure; there has been very little contribution from private sponsorship. Whether it will be possible to persuade Parliament to change the lottery rules I am not sure. We had great difficulty when we tried before.
In the run up to the outcome of the current spending review, which is entitled SR2000, and the funding allocation process for the years 2001 to 2004, PPARC is updating its strategy for astronomical facilities. Its deliberations will be informed by the long-term science review on astronomy that reported to PPARC on 19th February, a matter to which both the noble Earl and the noble Lord have referred. This review, by the astronomy panel of PPARC, highlighted a range of capabilities that it believed were particularly important for the future of UK astronomy. As your Lordships can imagine, its ideal shopping list is quite extensive and PPARC now has to look at how best to address, and most cost effectively, its requirements and to propose a way forward. As part of its thinking, PPARC will certainly be looking again at capitalising on its many international relationships, including those with the European Southern Observatory, ESO.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, seemed to think that there was something wrong about the proliferation of international partnerships. They have always been the case in astronomy. We have always taken our opportunities where we find them; we join with people who are able to offer us a good deal, both financially and scientifically; and, when we do not have formal links with such people, we still buy time, or are even awarded time, on a competitive tendering basis, on existing facilities. That is the case with ESO's 4-metre telescopes in Chile.
As these projects are such major investments we have always worked with a variety of international partners over the years, both to share the costs and to get access to the most advanced technology. The European

899
Southern Observatory has been, and still is, one of the main routes for the UK to investigate for joint development and access to the facilities that our astronomers need.
The UK has always had a close relationship with ESO. We participated actively in the 1950s in the establishment of ESO, but we decided not to join because we had access to other equivalent southern astronomical facilities in Australia and South Africa. More recently, in 1989, we decided to join the USA in building the Gemini 8-metre telescopes rather than joining ESO in its development of its very large telescopes as we believed at the time—this was largely the view of the astronomical community—that that was the most cost-effective way of delivering the capability to our astronomers.
I mention the 8-metre telescopes in particular because it is the high priority that UK astronomers are now giving to gaining additional access to this size of telescope that is at the heart of the current debate over membership of ESO. When the Gemini South facilities come on stream the UK will have the equivalent of 50 per cent of one 8-metre telescope. This was the level planned for when we entered the project but, as reported to PPARC in the long-term science review, the community would now like more time, at least one telescope's worth, and it sees the ESO 8-metre VLT telescopes as a possible source.
So we are not members of ESO but we do continue to have productive working relationships with it. For example, another top priority facility for UK astronomers is the Atacama Large Millimetre Array (ALMA). This will be the largest ground-based astronomy project of the decade. It will detect and study the earliest and most distant galaxies, the epoch of the first light of the universe. It will also look deep into the dust-obscured regions where stars are born to examine the details of star and planet formation. The UK is participating in this £250 million project as part of the European component and signed a memorandum of understanding with ESO to this end in December 1998.
Moving right up to date, the executive board of the UK VISTA project has just announced that it is aiming to locate this new, powerful, 4-metre instrument at the ESO Paranal observatory in Chile. The project will provide the largest and most effective telescope of its kind, for use by the VISTA consortium of universities, when it enters service in 2004. However, I should emphasise that PPARC does not own it; it is owned by the consortium of universities. Therefore the kind of deal that the noble Earl referred to may not be possible. As the organisation that will pay for the running of VISTA once it is commissioned, PPARC have been asked by the VISTA Consortium to negotiate with ESO the Financial and technical conditions for siting it at its observatory at Paranal.
It is a difficult job to balance our investment between the short term demands from the astronomy community and positioning the UK as favourably as
900
possible in the medium to long term. This means ensuring that we are making the right investments in new and advanced capabilities such as the very large 50 metre telescope that we shall need in 10 to 20 years' time, as well as getting the time on today's facilities that the astronomers most need right now. As new astronomical facilities come on line, they very rarely replace existing facilities but they provide new capabilities in addition to those that astronomers already have. For PPARC, this means that it must also juggle the requirements for funding an ever increasing range of existing facilities within what is, after all, a fixed budget. Therefore, UK membership of ESO must be considered against this backdrop.
The most recent figures for joining ESO as a full member show that it would cost the UK some £55 million for the joining fee plus an additional£12 million or so annual contribution. This is because we did not join in 1989 and is a reflection of back fees and because fees are based on gross national product rather than on any more astronomical consideration. Frankly, that is not likely to be affordable within the current level of funding available and, even if more money could be found, it is not clear that membership of ESO on those terms provides particularly good value for money when compared with other UK research priorities.
The approach we are taking is certainly not to turn our backs on ESO but to encourage Ian Halliday, the Chief Executive of PPARC, and officials of PPARC to hold discussions with ESO to see whether there are alternative packages of collaborative activity and access to ESO facilities that would be more attractive to the UK, both scientifically and financially. These discussions are ongoing. Mr Halliday has had two meetings with the ESO director general. They have already agreed that there is potential benefit to both sides in moving towards a single European optical astronomy body.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, said that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, the Science Minister, had not yet become involved. He has not, but he is certainly prepared to be as soon as we reach that stage of negotiations and we do hope—and we are enthusiastic about this—that these discussions will provide a springboard for the wider debate on how to give European astronomy as strong a position as possible for the future on the global stage.
The Question before the House refers to an,
"expeditious participation in the European Southern Observatory"
I think what I have said shows that we are pursuing our approach to the European Southern Observatory with all due dispatch. The important consideration is that we should reach a conclusion, the best conclusion that we possibly can, in time for the spending review 2000. I am confident that we shall be able to do that, although I cannot of course be confident about the exact nature of the result of the negotiations.
House adjourned at three minutes past nine o'clock.

  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Sheep Dipping and "Crutching"
  Sheep Dipping and "Crutching"
  MAFF: Modernisation Programme
  MAFF: Modernisation Programme
  Organic and GM Crops: Separation
  Organic and GM Crops: Separation
  National Seed List and GM Seed
  National Seed List and GM Seed
  Council Housing Stock
  Council Housing Stock
  Road Haulage Forum
  Road Haulage Forum
  Pensioners' Christmas Bonus
  Pensioners' Christmas Bonus
  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation: Review
  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation: Review
  Refugee Dispersal Policy
  Refugee Dispersal Policy
  Prison Service Quantum Project
  Prison Service Quantum Project
  Global Cultural Diversity Congress: Review
  Global Cultural Diversity Congress: Review
  Millennium Dome: Disabled Visitors
  Millennium Dome: Disabled Visitors
  NHS Pensions Agency
  NHS Pensions Agency
  VAT Reduced Rate Experiments
  VAT Reduced Rate Experiments
  Library Plan Assessments
  Library Plan Assessments
  Magistrates' Courts
  Magistrates' Courts