Sitting of 14 March 2000

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

    CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Tuesday 21 March.

    GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (BY ORDER)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second Time on Tuesday 21 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. Peter Luff: What recent meetings he has had with the President of the European Commission to discuss enlargement of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [112868]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary regularly have discussions with the President of the European Commission, including on enlargement. We agree that enlargement is essential if we are to spread peace, stability and shared values throughout the continent. The United Kingdom is committed to a swift and successful enlargement of the European Union, and is working with the European Commission as well as other member states and the candidate countries to achieve this. I have also met Commissioner Verheugen to discuss these matters.
    Mr. Luff: I am delighted to be able to agree with the Minister's response to my question, but can he explain how an unreformed common agricultural policy, a single currency and generally deeper integration will assist in the historic purpose that he so eloquently described?
    Mr. Vaz: As the hon. Gentleman knows, discussions and negotiations are a matter for the candidate countries and the Commission. The chapter on agriculture has not yet been opened, although 23 of the 31 chapters of the
    148
    acquis have been. They will be tough negotiations, and I am sure and I hope that they will have a successful and swift conclusion.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: Although I welcome the emphasis and attention that the Government are giving to the enlargement process, may I urge the Minister and his colleagues to pay particular attention to building up non-governmental organisations and the process of political development not just in countries such as Hungary and the Czech Republic, which have made substantial progress, but in others, such as Romania and Bulgaria, where progress still needs to be made?
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is clear that the tough on-going negotiations are important. However, at the level of political engagement between applicant countries and the Commission and the United Kingdom, we must ensure that such links are made. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have made a number of visits to the applicant countries, and we regularly receive Ministers from them. It is essential that the positive engagement between the United Kingdom and the applicant countries continues.
    Mr. Richard Spring: May I congratulate the Minister on his triumphantly successful and newsworthy speech in Washington? Are those who were present at it now anxious about memory or hearing loss, or both?
    Does the Minister agree that there is genuine concern among applicant countries about the potentially spiralling costs of the common agricultural policy and its implications for enlargement?
    Mr. Vaz: There will always be discussions on these matters, and clearly agriculture is extremely important. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the United Kingdom is committed to ensuring that the CAP is reformed, but we will not hold up enlargement before it is reformed. Clearly, the agricultural chapters will be watched very carefully.
    On my speech in Washington and the misquote that was ascribed to me by The Mail on Sunday, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if I know the date of the general election, he will be the first to know so that he can prepare for his redundancy pay.

    Uganda
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Uganda. [112869]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Britain and Uganda have a close relationship and we are supporting Uganda's economic, social and democratic development.
    Dr. Naysmith: Will my hon. Friend seek to strengthen our ties with Uganda and will he reassure the House of the importance that we attach to a party-based democracy in that country? Does he believe, as I do, that the World Service of the BBC, which can regularly reach 68 per cent. of the population of Kampala, has a part to play in that?
    Mr. Hain: We will certainly strengthen our ties with Uganda, which probably has the best anti-poverty record in Africa, and we are supporting it. I am, however, concerned about a number of aspects of the coming referendum on a no-party democracy. I have expressed them to President Museveni and pointed out the need for a level playing field between those in favour and those against his proposals. It is not obvious that such a level playing field is being provided at the moment. It should include free access to the media, and the role of the BBC World Service, as my hon. Friend says, could be important in that.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Is the Minister aware that there are 15 million people in the Horn of Africa, including 750,000 Ugandans, who are in fear of starvation and disease as a result of the complete crop failure in that area? Can the House be reassured that the Government are planning preparatory measures to deal with this incipient crisis? Is this not yet another example where arranging for bases in Africa to stockpile equipment and foodstuffs against such emergencies might be helpful?
    Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue, and I very much share his concerns about the drought and the worsening food problem in that area, which are affecting countries as far south as Kenya. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is making the preparations that the hon. Gentleman has identified and will make every effort to ensure that the problem is addressed, as she has so effectively done in other parts of Africa.
    Kali Mountford: Has my hon. Friend had time to read early-day motion 515, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett)? Is it not worrying that elements in Uganda are flagrantly breaching sanctions, as are some of their neighbours? Does not that inflict terrible damage on the effectiveness of sanctions and international agreements? Is it not time to name and shame?
    Mr. Hain: I have indeed seen early-day motion 515, and I am very concerned about the evidence that it contains. In particular, there is a reference to a senior member of Ugandan society. I am sure that President Museveni, who assured me that he would investigate all such reports of sanctions busting involving the supply of UNITA, will want to consider that closely.
    One of the reasons why I am travelling to New York straight after Question Time is to join Ambassador Fowler in his campaign with the United Nations to make sure that sanctions are enforced properly to starve UNITA of the fuel, guns, munitions and other supplies that it uses to maintain its murderous war.

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What representations he has made to the Commission on the document, "Adapting the Institutions to make a Success of Enlargement"; and if he will make a statement. [112871]
    Mr. Christopher Chope: What representations the Government have made to other EU member states on the proposals set out in the Commission's document, "Adapting the Institutions to make a Success of Enlargement"; and if he will make a statement. [112883]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The Government are in regular contact with the Commission on a range of issues, including the intergovernmental conference. However, IGC decisions will be made by member states alone. The Government's position is set out in the White Paper laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 15 February.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister not realise that the document completely reverses the current situation in which voting by unanimity is the norm and qualified majority voting is confined to certain policy areas? If he does not take this opportunity to make it clear that he is opposed to that, he will be seen by Brussels as giving it the green light to take control of a huge range of policy areas such as structural and cohesion funds.
    Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman should calm down. Nobody is trying to take over this country—or, indeed, him. The Commission is entitled to put forward its view, and it has made its opinion clear. We have a short and focused agenda of what we shall achieve. We shall fight very hard at ministerial and official level to make sure that our agenda is accepted. Certainly, in relation to the development of the IGC, everything that the UK has asked for is proceeding according to plan. I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the end, as I said, the decision will be taken by the member states and the European Council, and not by the Commission, although of course we always value the Commission's input in those deliberations.
    Mr. Chope: Does the Minister not accept that the document shows that the European Commission is using enlargement as a Trojan horse for the creation of a federal European super-state? Can he explain why the Government have not set out in their White Paper any response to the pernicious proposal for European-wide voting lists, which would involve Members of the European Parliament being elected by an electorate of more than 300 million adults? How is that compatible with democracy and national sovereignty?
    Mr. Vaz: I feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman if he is so obsessed with the idea of a federalist state that he thinks that everything that emanates from Brussels is a step on the long march to a federalist state. We have made our position absolutely clear. I commend the IGC

    151
    document to him. If he has not received a copy of the White Paper launched by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 15 February, I will send him two copies.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Are there not two problems bedevilling the enlargement process? One is the failure to reform the common agricultural policy, and the other is the freedom of movement of labour. How can there be such freedom when at this very moment most member states are tightening their immigration laws? What would happen in an enlarged Europe with those tightened regulations?
    Mr. Vaz: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the IGC has a short and focused agenda. The purpose of the IGC is to prepare the European Union for enlargement. We have a strict timetable, which means that the IGC must be completed by the end of 2000. If we do not stick to a very short and focused agenda, we will not complete it by the end of 2000, and we will not be ready for enlargement. The issues raised by my hon. Friend are important. We have a tough but fair immigration policy, and we are certain that our European partners will operate on the same basis.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. James Paice: What representations he has received on his White Paper on the IGC; and if he will make a statement. [112872]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): There have been no formal representations on the White Paper, but the response from the applicant countries has been universally positive. Over the past two weeks I have discussed the proposals with the Foreign Ministers of Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Romania. All of them welcomed the fact that the Government are giving such a strong commitment to the reforms needed for enlargement.
    Mr. Paice: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that such matters are outwith the real concerns of the majority of the British people? Their concern is that the European Union as at present constructed is still very imperfect, not least because many countries apparently flout many of the regulations to which they have appended their names. Many British people would not support the extension of the Community into other policy areas, be it the existing 15 member states or the applicant countries. Will the Secretary of State give his commitment that he will concentrate at the IGC on making Europe work better at what it is doing now—including the applicant countries as they join—rather than on any further extension of its activities into policy areas in which it is not currently involved?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that those of us who support the European Union and want Britain's membership of it to be a success also want the European Union to be reformed. That is why one of the issues that we have proposed within the IGC is for reform of the European Court of Justice, particularly its rules of procedure. As I think the hon.
    152
    Gentleman may agree, although many of his colleagues may not, it will be easier to achieve that if we can get qualified majority voting as the basis for decision making.
    Mr. John Cryer: Are there any areas into which my right hon. Friend would resist the extension of QMV?
    Mr. Cook: Yes, there are, and I have repeatedly stated them to the House. They are border controls, defence, social security, taxation, treaty amendments and the financial resources of the European Union.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that the IGC and the enlargement programme might be jeopardised by strained relations with Austria within the EU?
    Mr. Cook: No, I do not share that anxiety. I have heard the Austrian Foreign Minister address meetings of the European Union, particularly the General Affairs Council. She made clear her commitment, and the commitment of the Chancellor for whom she works, that they will make sure that the business of Europe continues. It is important that those in Austria who want the European Union to succeed and the other member states of the European Union make it plain that we will not allow Mr. Haider's xenophobic views to wreck the European Union.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the mainstream majority of the public are strongly opposed to further legislative interference from Brussels? Are there any areas of legislation where the Government are prepared to contemplate the extension of qualified majority voting in the course of the IGC, or is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to rule out today any further erosion of the legislative—I stress "legislative"—veto?
    Mr. Cook: On public opinion, I was struck by The Daily Telegraph poll last week, which found that 50 per cent. of the public recognised the Labour party as representing their views on Europe, and that only 34 per cent. recognised the Tory party as representing their views. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that on this one, we seem to have more of the public with us.
    Given the right hon. Gentleman's record, I do wish that he would give up posturing as the champion of the veto. He was, after all, not only the Minister who signed the Maastricht treaty, but who said that he was very happy to sign it. He owes it to the House to tell us now whether he is still happy that he signed it. Is he happy that he signed away 30 years of the veto? If he is, will he please give up posturing as the champion of the veto?
    Mr. Maude: By harping on the Maastricht treaty, the Foreign Secretary illustrates the central point. He does not understand the difference between driving to the end of the pier, and carrying on driving when he has reached the end. Does he not understand that such equivocation encourages the Commission to introduce proposals such as it is bringing forward later today, which would get rid of the veto on taxation and social security? Is it because

    153
    the Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament, Andrew Duff, was right when he said on the IGC recently that the Government's attitude
    is in fact much more flexible than certain public declarations suggest …?
    Is not that another example of the Foreign Secretary saying one thing in Britain and agreeing to something else in Brussels?
    Mr. Cook: I cannot improve on the right hon. Gentleman's metaphor, since he speaks for a party which at the last election constituted the end-of-the-pier show.
    We have not only repeatedly explained in the House where we stand on qualified majority voting, but I have published a White Paper on it. Eighty per cent. of decision making in the European Union is done by qualified majority voting, largely as a result of the extension to which Conservative Members agreed when they were in government. There is only limited room for further extension, but we are no more afraid of it than the right hon. Gentleman was when he was a Minister. He once told the House that the number of times we were outvoted "is tiny." That is why it is sometimes in our interest to agree to majority voting.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Philip Hammond: If he will make a statement on Anglo-Spanish relations, with particular reference to the issue of Gibraltar. [112873]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): Relations with Spain are generally strong. We have a developing dialogue and co-operation across a wide range of bilateral, EU and other international issues.
    We believe that co-operation, dialogue and the development of confidence remain the basis for improved relations between the United Kingdom, Spain and Gibraltar.
    I had the pleasure of meeting His Royal Highness the Crown Prince Felipe on his recent highly successful visit to London.
    Mr. Hammond: In welcoming the new Spanish Government, will the Minister make it clear that the UK expects Spain to abide by all its EU treaty obligations on Gibraltar? Spain has been in flagrant and long-term breach of some of those obligations, especially on border controls and transport between Gibraltar and Spain, direct-dial telephone access to Gibraltar from Spain and Gibraltar travel documents. Will the Minister make it clear to the Spanish Government that unless they move quickly and decisively to resolve those problems, Britain will take action under article 227 to ensure their future compliance?
    Mr. Vaz: We will maintain our strong relationship with the Spanish Government, and we shall continue to work with them to resolve any outstanding difficulties. We have made our position on border controls absolutely clear. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—and I when I met Commissioner Vitorino—pointed out our anxiety about the way in which Spain approached border controls.
    154
    The commissioner told me that the border delay problem was being examined and actively pursued by the Commission. We shall continue to pursue the matter. The way to tackle the problem is not through the sort of dramatic confrontation that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) suggests, however, but by working with Spain and Gibraltar to ensure that all outstanding problems are resolved.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Surely the underlying and inescapable matter that the Government must tackle is the acute democratic deficit for people whose Parliament is ultimately this place but who are not represented here. Is it not time that the British Government considered giving representation—albeit limited—in the House to those who are governed by this place despite the existence of a local House of Assembly? That would be consistent not only with the practices of the other principal democracies in relation to their comparable territories but with our human rights obligations and legislation.
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is a great champion of Gibraltar, and I am not surprised that he has raised that matter. He knows the Government's position on the Matthews judgment. We are bound by it, we will honour it and we are considering ways in which to ensure that the people of Gibraltar are enfranchised and can take part in European parliamentary elections.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: When will Her Majesty's Government cease to contravene the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that the people of Gibraltar, being in the European Union, should have votes in the European parliamentary elections?
    Mr. Vaz: The right hon. Gentleman will know from my previous answer that we are bound by the decision of the ECHR and we are seeking ways to ensure that at the next opportunity, when there are elections to the European Parliament, there is enfranchisement under that judgment.

    Burma (Human Rights)
    Ms Helen Southworth: If he will exert pressure on the Burmese regime to respect the human rights of the Burmese people. [112874]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The whole House is appalled by the human rights violations and the lack of democracy in Burma. That includes killings, rape, torture, forced relocation, forced labour, political detentions and a lack of press freedoms. The Government take every opportunity to condemn those violations and to urge the regime to change the situation.
    Ms Southworth: I thank my hon. Friend for taking that position. It is essential that we speak out on behalf of the Burmese people and in defence of human rights internationally. Will the Government use their partnership with the International Labour Organisation to take every opportunity to ensure that the Burmese regimes end forced labour?
    Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Forced labour is one of the large number of human rights

    155
    violations. A 1998 ILO report, which highlighted its use, made clear recommendations for the regime to implement, but they have done absolutely nothing about that. However, we shall raise the matter at the March Governing Body of the ILO, which meets at the end of this week, and continue to put pressure on the regime over the use of direct forced labour.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not the despicable catalogue of malpractices of the Burmese regime mirrored across the border in the People's Republic of China? Is it not the case that Burma at least does not threaten its neighbours as China threatens Taiwan and the exercise of Taiwanese democracy? Could not the Government be consistent in their application of an ethical foreign policy? Were they to be so, they might get some praise, and justifiably so.
    Mr. Battle: The crucial difference is that the Burmese regime has locked up the democratically elected opposition and will not engage in conversation with them at all. Let me make it clear that at least the Chinese regime is willing to enter into dialogue and discuss human rights. We believe that we should have critical engagement, and have raised with China Tibet, democratisation, freedom of religion, torture, judicial independence, political detainees, Falun Gong and many other issues. Only recently, and as a result of our pressure, we achieved agreement that the all-party group on Tibet can now visit Tibet. The death penalty panel will discuss a strategy for the abolition of capital punishment and we have established a working group of experts on the ratification of the two United Nations human rights covenants. We are making progress to get China to change, but there is no way forward in Burma because the regime will not enter into critical engagement. I hope that the Opposition might at least acknowledge that there is a difference between the two situations.
    Mr. Steve McCabe: On human rights, will my hon. Friend make representations on behalf of Mr. U Aung Khin, who was arrested in 1989 by the military authorities and sent to Insein prison? He appears to have disappeared without trace. I have written twice to the embassy asking for information, but it has declined to reply. We must not allow people to disappear without trace.
    Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I will raise that matter with our embassy staff in Rangoon. We will work with our European Union partners for a resolution even tougher than last year's to be adopted at the forthcoming UN Commission on Human Rights meeting. Individual cases will represent some of the reasons for toughening our approach.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the Minister tell the House what plans he has to ban investment in Burma by British companies?
    Mr. Battle: In June 1997, the Government announced that they would not encourage UK companies to trade or invest in Burma. We suspended all financial support for trade missions to Burma and for trade promotions activities in Burma. British companies that inquire about trade with Burma are informed of the dire political
    156
    situation, its appalling human rights record and the poor state of the economy. Those are effective sanctions. We did all that as soon as we came into government. It is interesting that the Conservative Government did nothing to raise the issue or to take any action to try to change the situation in Burma.

    Mongolia
    Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement on relations with Mongolia. [112875]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): Our relations with Mongolia are particularly strong. The Mongolian Prime Minister visited the United Kingdom as a guest of Government from 27 February to 3 March. I understand that the hon. Gentleman visited Mongolia as part of the Inter-Parliamentary Union team. I understand also that it was a successful visit.
    Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he join me in welcoming the Mongolian delegation, which is visiting Parliament this week, following the successful visit by the Prime Minister last week?
    Will the hon. Gentleman congratulate Mongolia on its determination to remain a beacon of pluralistic, democratic free marketeering—surrounded as it is by China on one side and by Russia on the other? In trying to preserve that beacon to the rest of that part of the world, will the Minister seek ways of encouraging mutual exchanges of students from Mongolia to the UK and, to a lesser extent, from the UK to Mongolia?
    Mr. Battle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The delegation of 10 Mongolian MPs who are here now is most welcome. I hope perhaps to meet them tomorrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has established an all-party group on UK-Mongolia relations. The sixth UK-Mongolia round table is scheduled for 8 to 10 May, when there will be discussions on commerce, the environment and education. We support Chevening scholarships to allow the exchange to take place. I think that the scholarships have been extended to a further two. The spirit of the hon. Gentleman's question is welcome.
    We also support, through the EU TACIS programme with Mongolia, funds to help the country's move towards democracy and the opening up of its economy—I think some 30 million euros are now in that programme. We shall continue that positive support.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that every one of the Mongolian MPs who is visiting the UK has said that the prime objective is to learn from this country about democracy while they are here. Will he make sure that every support is given to that objective? Will he ensure also, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, that the UK does everything possible to ensure that the steps towards democracy are not hindered by the tragedy of the appalling weather conditions which have led to the death of so much livestock in Mongolia?
    Mr. Battle: As I said, my hon. Friend has been active in establishing an all-party group. He led the delegation

    157
    to Mongolia, and I was grateful for his report-back. The answer is yes. We want to do all that we can to encourage understanding of democracy. The Mongolian MPs have a full programme and I understand that they are visiting the House tomorrow. They are meeting a range of people who have views on our system of democracy. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's message to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, to ascertain whether we can continue our efforts.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Minister is well aware that the Mongolian economy was much affected by the collapse of the Russian economy. The fact that Russia took troops home from Mongolia also took quite a lot out of the economy. Will the hon. Gentleman consider what we can do in this country to develop trade links to help Mongolia with its mining industry—I understand that it has considerable mineral deposits? Will he have conversations about how the economy, being improved, will back up the excellent democracy that Mongolia now has?
    Mr. Battle: I remind the hon. Gentleman that a trade and economic agreement has been in place between Mongolia and the European Union since 1997. It has granted Mongolia most-favoured status for most of its products. The sixth UK-Mongolia round table—it was originally intended as a bi-annual event—which was postponed owing to Mongolia's internal political troubles in 1998–99, is now back up and running, and is scheduled for 8 to 10 May. It will cover themes of bilateral interest, especially commerce and trade, and I think it will be a productive meeting.

    Iran
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: If he will make a statement on his recent talks with the Foreign Minister of Iran. [112876]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Dr. Kharrazi's visit in January was the first official visit to Britain by a Foreign Minister of Iran since the revolution 20 years ago. His visit enabled us to take forward our co-operation in areas of mutual concern such as the drugs trade. We are now contributing more than £1 million to assist Iran in combating the drugs trade. I impressed on Dr. Kharrazi the importance that we attach to Iran's commitment concerning Salman Rushdie, and our concern about a number of issues, including the continuing detention without trial of members of the Jewish community and others.
    The subsequent elections in Iran produced an impressive majority for reform. The clear mandate of the people of Iran for modernisation justifies our strategy of critical dialogue with those in Iran who want to engage with the modern world.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful for that answer, but will my right hon. Friend think carefully before agreeing to visit Iran? Will he bear in mind that the Government of Iran continue to provide funding, weapons and training for terrorist groups opposed to the middle east peace process? Will he also consider the case of the 13 Jews in
    158
    Shiraz, who were arrested on apparently dubious charges of espionage? Are they not entitled to proper legal representation and to a fair trial that is open to international observers?
    Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that I share his anxiety. I impressed on Dr. Kharrazi the importance that we attach to the middle east peace process and the severe damage that would be done not only to the peace process, but to relations between Iran and the rest of the world if anything were done to disrupt that peace process.
    I pressed Dr. Kharrazi on the question of the remaining Jewish detainees. I am pleased that three were subsequently released on bail and that a trial date has now been set. We shall do everything possible to ensure that the trial is fair and open.
    Sir David Madel: Did Iran's Foreign Minister say that his Government support the middle east peace process? If they do, should not the Government of Iran recognise the state of Israel?
    Mr. Cook: I very much hope that the Government of Iran will eventually recognise the state of Israel; that would plainly be expected as Iran engages with the outside the world. However, I have to admit that, no, I did not get a statement of Iran's support for the peace process. I hope that the new mandate will ensure that the Government of Iran listen to those of us who urge restraint on them so that they do not disrupt the peace process.

    Russia
    Mr. Mike Gapes: What assessment he has made of recent political developments in Russia; and if he will make a statement. [112877]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I visited Moscow last month and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited St. Petersburg at the weekend. It is in the interests of Britain and the west that we engage with Russia at the highest level. My right hon. Friend and I both expressed Britain's deep concern about the level of military violence in Chechnya and the unnecessary human suffering that it has caused. Mr. Putin assured my right hon. Friend that Russia will permit access to Chechnya by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, and by international bodies such as the Red Cross and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
    It is important to our international interests that we are able to talk frankly to Russia about issues on which we disagree, such as Chechnya, and to strengthen our working relationship in respect of matters such as the Balkans and arms control, in which we need Russia's co-operation to succeed.
    Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's answer. In December, I was in Siberia in my role as an OSCE observer of the Duma elections. Russia is now developing into a vibrant democracy that covers 11 time zones. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital to build good relations between the UK Parliament and the newly elected Russian Parliament, and to build on the

    159
    welcome visit by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the new Russian Duma, with six parties represented and 100 independent Members, will be far more effective than its predecessor? Does he share my hope that that Parliament will ratify the START 2 treaty as soon as possible?
    Mr. Cook: I commend my hon. Friend on his dedication in going to Siberia in December. His work and that of many others enabled us to conclude that those elections were free and fair, and I am pleased that Russia has invited the OSCE to monitor the forthcoming presidential elections as well.
    We welcome the changes within the Duma, and I agree entirely that more parliamentary exchanges will be helpful in our efforts to support it. In the past year, we have had 14 Russian parliamentary delegations to Britain, but there have been only four from Britain to Russia, so we are behind. The more we do to maintain such contacts, the more able we shall be to support arms control initiatives of the sort mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Do not the Government feel some discomfort about breaking bread and sharing salt with Mr. Putin? He is the man who directed the campaign in which Chechnya was turned into a wasteland and innocent men, women and children were subjected to indiscriminate bombing and shelling. Before we offer advice on the reform of the Russian economy, should we not insist on a commitment from Mr. Putin that, both in word and in deed, he and his Government will respect the human rights of the people of Chechnya?
    Mr. Cook: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the situation in Chechnya is deplorable and unacceptable. My right hon. Friend and I have engaged at the highest level in Russia to express that view. If we have criticisms to make, we should not resist making them in person to the people who can change the policy. I share the conclusion of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that Chechnya is a reason why Britain should be more, not less, involved in dialogue with Russia.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members support that position? We need active engagement in Russia for precisely the reasons that he has just outlined. We must get across to the present Russian Government that there can be no excuse for murder and torture of civilians, and no suggestion that there is a parallel between atrocities that have certainly been carried out by Chechen guerrillas and the actions of the Russia state. It is only by face-to-face confrontation that that message can be delivered to President-in-waiting Putin.
    Mr. Cook: I agree very much with my hon. Friend's conclusion. I also share his view that the international community must have greater expectations of actions by a state than it has of actions by individuals. That is why I very much welcome the fact that Russia has indicated that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the OSCE can visit Chechnya. When we visited Russia, my right hon. Friend and I impressed on Mr. Putin the importance of transparency as the best safeguard against violations of human rights.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: There is something not quite right about the answers that the Foreign Secretary is giving us. We know that the Prime Minister prefers to enjoy a night at the opera in St. Petersburg rather than criticise Russian actions in Chechnya. Even the French press have today said that if the Prime Minister
    wants to appear as a grand master of diplomacy he will have to wash his hands first.
    The Foreign Secretary told us that he was frank with the Russians over Chechnya, but the Russian press, which is unspun, told another story. They said that the Foreign Secretary had been
    mild in the highest degree … extremely favourable to Moscow
    and that he was opposed to a toughening of the stance on Chechnya. Are not he and the Prime Minister making an art form of saying one thing and doing another? Will he be joining the Prime Minister at the basin?
    Mr. Cook: If the hon. Lady really believes that the Moscow press is unspun, she should spend more time in Russia. I vigorously rebut the suggestion that I said one thing in private and another in public. I assure the House that what I said at the press conference in Moscow was what I said in the meeting.
    It is a bit rich for the hon. Lady to criticise Government Front-Bench Members when the former Conservative spokesman under whom she served until only last month said that the sooner the Russians won the better. At least we have the courage to criticise the Russians, whereas the Conservatives egged them on.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, in his meetings with the Russian Foreign Minister and the Russian Government, he is demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya, the engagement of a political process to bring about a solution there, and a guarantee that they will not engage in military activities in similar situations in Russia? It cannot be said that Russia is a vibrant democracy if it is bombarding part of its country using first world war methods against people who have a different view of the world from that held in Moscow.
    Mr. Cook: I did not demand the withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya, which, as my hon. Friend has just acknowledged, is part of the Russian Federation. The difficulties of the past two years may have arisen because all troops were withdrawn from that area. I concur with my hon. Friend on the other points that he made, and I assure him that I pressed for a political process. Our criticism of what has been done in Chechnya has all along been that military violence alone will not work, far less the excessive military violence that we have witnessed and that has caused the suffering to which my hon. Friend referred.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Mark Oaten: What recent discussions he has had with his colleagues in the United Nations regarding Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [112878]
    Mr. David Chidgey: What recent discussions he has had with Foreign Ministers of other countries regarding Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [112880]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I most recently discussed Kosovo with Kofi Annan this morning. As I said after the meeting, we agreed that much progress had been made. A total of 800,000 refugees have returned to Kosovo; the first 350 local police drawn from all ethnic communities have completed training; and 90 per cent. of children have been able to attend school, something that they were denied for a decade by Belgrade.
    Much remains to be done, particularly to tackle crime. Today I have announced that Britain will be responding to the appeal for international judges and prosecutors. Forty British lawyers have expressed an interest, and I hope that some of them will be able to take up their posts next month.
    We take seriously the problems that remain in Kosovo, and we will take every responsible step to resolve them; but we should never forget that the problems would be much worse if we had not acted, and had left nearly 1 million refugees without homes during the winter.
    Mr. Oaten: Does the Foreign Secretary share Madeleine Albright's fear that the European Community is not pulling its weight in delivering hard cash quickly to help to deal with the reconstruction problems in Kosovo?
    Mr. Cook: I met Madeleine Albright last week and we discussed the state of Kosovo at some length. Let me point out that the European Union is funding the majority of UNMIK's administration budget, and that this country, of which the hon. Gentleman is a Member of Parliament, has funded the utilities, the prisons, the transformation of the Kosovo Liberation Army, the formation of the Kosovo protection force and the health service in Pristina. It has provided civil experts for UNMIK, is supporting de-mining and, over the coming year, will fund reconstruction of the health and social services and the registration of electors. We are investing considerable resources and we are working hard to make a success of what we are doing.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that last week we heard universal praise for the British contribution—for the professionalism of our soldiers, the contribution of our police and our civil administrators. There was, however, deep-seated concern about what was seen to be the proposed precipitate withdrawal of the team from the Department for International Development in Kosovo, which could, it was felt, lead to a great gap and to great disturbance. Will my right hon. Friend, in co-operation with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, undertake to review the contribution of that Department, to ensure that there is, at best, a more phased withdrawal?
    Mr. Cook: I read with interest the reports from Pristina of the visit by my hon. Friend and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I am pleased about the visit, and look forward to discussing it with them when I give evidence to the Committee on Thursday.
    162
    I think that there has been a misunderstanding in regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend. It is true that a change is in progress in the Department for International Development in regard to who is responsible for the support work in Kosovo: it is shifting from the section that deals with humanitarian crises to the section that deals with reconstruction, because that is what is happening in Kosovo. I can, however, tell my hon. Friend that only last week the DFID confirmed that its budget in Kosovo this year would be £29 million, which will help reconstruction. The DFID will be fully involved in that.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of recent instances in which the activities of the international police force in Kosovo have been frustrated and obstructed by the French military and the French-controlled sector?
    Mr. Cook: I read last week's report in The Times with interest. I made inquiries, and I am sure that the report was not correct in saying that British policemen had withdrawn from Mitrovica because of criticism. It is important for all members of KFOR, the French and everyone else, to co-operate fully with the police and to provide rapid access to scenes of crime.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the supply of additional judges to Kosovo. When we were there, we were made very much aware of the problem experienced by the police, who could arrest people but could then do nothing other than caution and release them.
    Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a uniform policy across Kosovo of dismantling paramilitary forces, whether they are the KLA or the Serb paramilitary in Mitrovica, so that there can be a real return to civil government?
    Mr. Cook: I entirely agree: it is important for Kosovo to be ruled and governed by the UN international mandate, rather than by men who happen to have managed to hold on to their weapons.
    We have worked hard to try to reduce the volume of weapons in Kosovo. Eight thousand have been handed in voluntarily, and a further 4,000 have been confiscated as a result of KFOR's work. I agree that it is important for us to continue to press home that work, to ensure that Mitrovica does not remain an enclave under paramilitary control but is part of the UNMIK mandate throughout Kosovo, and to ensure that those expelled from their homes there have the opportunity to return.
    Mr. David Wilshire: Following the discussions that the right hon. Gentleman has just reported to the House, is he able to tell us the number of Kosovar Albanians forced out of Kosovo, as distinct from the number terrorised out of their homes prior to the start of the NATO attacks on Yugoslavia?
    Mr. Cook: A total of 850,000 were forced out of their homes during that period of conflict. As to those who were forced from their homes in the period preceding the conflict, that, of course, will depend on the period that is taken, but, in October of the preceding year, when Holbrooke attended negotiations in Belgrade, 250,000 Kosovar Albanians had already been forced from their

    163
    homes. The idea that the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo began with the NATO bombing is totally in defiance of the history of that troubled province in the preceding year. It was the victim of repeated oppression.

    Egypt
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Egypt concerning the treatment of Christians in Egypt. [112879]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Cairo in January, he discussed inter-faith issues with members of the Government, including President Mubarak. We were concerned to hear reports of violence in early January in upper Egypt. The Egyptian authorities have pledged to carry out a thorough investigation.
    Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that that will be greatly welcomed by the Christian community in this country, but is he aware that the conservative estimates are that, last year, tens of thousands of Christians were killed for their faith? Is he further aware that in not only Egypt, but Indonesia and Pakistan, there are real concerns about the use of blasphemy laws to imprison and to torture Christian prisoners? Will he stand up time and again not only for pluralism, but for religious tolerance in all those countries?
    Mr. Hain: Indeed I will. I am happy to acknowledge and pay tribute to my hon. Friend's close and dedicated interest in the matter. Britain has a proud record, having a multi-faith, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society. We press that as a model for the rest of the world. We criticise, condemn and ask for an end to any attacks on Christians throughout the world, just as we do any attacks on members of other faiths.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Was the treatment of the Coptic Christians discussed during the visits to Egypt last October and this February by Lord Levy? Is the Foreign Office told what he gets up to in his role as the Prime Minister's personal special envoy? While the Minister is at it, will he confirm that No. 10 has taken over responsibility for policy on the middle east, the United States, Russia and the European Union? Does he recall that, on one of the Foreign Secretary's earlier forays in the middle east, The Jerusalem Post asked:
    with a diplomat like Cook by his side, how can Blair fail to loom as a giant statesman?
    Is that the Foreign Secretary's main role: to make the Prime Minister look good?
    Mr. Hain: On that performance, the right hon. Gentleman will be shadow Foreign Secretary for as short a time as his predecessor. Is he really suggesting that the Prime Minister should not take an interest in those international issues and support the Foreign Secretary's work?
    164
    Every fair-minded citizen will condemn outright the grubby and pathetic little campaign being waged by the Opposition in certain sections of the media against Lord Levy. He travels as the Prime Minister's envoy—on his behalf—representing interests, whether economic or others, in all parts of the middle east, from Morocco to Damascus. For example, when he spoke to the Syrian Government, he was instrumental in starting the negotiations between Syria and the Israelis. He should be applauded for that, not condemned. As he travels at his own expense and in his own time, the House should be grateful for his work and for the fact that Britain's interests are being represented through him, with the Prime Minister's agreement. He reports regularly to the Foreign Secretary and to Ministers such as me. It is time that the right hon. Gentleman stopped the snivelling little campaign against Lord Levy.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Which items Her Majesty's Government have ruled out for an extension of qualified majority voting at the intergovernmental conference; and if he will make a statement. [112881]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions, in the House and in our White Paper on the intergovernmental conference, that we shall consider the possible extension of qualified majority voting on a case-by-case basis. When it is in Britain's interests to support QMV, we shall do so. However, when key national interests are at stake—such as treaty changes, border controls, social security, taxation, own resources and defence—we shall insist on retaining unanimity.
    Mr. Paterson: Will the Government refuse to sign any treaty that extends QMV to cover any sphere of British taxation?
    Mr. Vaz: Yes.

    Cameroon
    Mr. David Chaytor: If he will make a statement on human rights in Cameroon. [112882]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Cameroon's recent human rights record has been poor, and Cameroon has made little progress towards fulfilling the commitments on human rights and governance made on joining the Commonwealth in 1995.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I draw his attention particularly to the case of members of the Southern Cameroon National Council who were arrested on 8-9 January, in the south-west province? Will he make specific representations to the Government of Cameroon on the fate of those SCNC members? Does he share the view

    165
    expressed in the report by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on the routine use of torture in the central prison in Yaounde?
    Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue—in which he has taken a close interest, and which we raise with the Cameroon Government. The Cameroon Government's human rights record is very poor. There is widespread use of torture and detention without charge. A special Government unit, the Brigade Anti-Gang, is responsible for hundreds of extra-judicial killings in the north—where there should have been another trial of 76 north-west detainees, who have been detained without charge for two years, and of whom seven have died in detention. That is completely unacceptable, and the Cameroon Government must honour their obligations to their citizens and—as a Commonwealth member—to the Harare declaration.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that twice in two years Cameroon has come bottom of the Transparency International corruption perception index, how has the hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that no British financial assistance to Cameroon has been in any way misappropriated or contributed to the abuse of human rights?
    Mr. Hain: We have satisfied ourselves to the greatest possible extent on the matter. However, if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary on it, I should be very pleased to hear it. We have also taken a very tough line within the Commonwealth. At the meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial action group in New York, which I attended, I pressed for a Commonwealth mission to go to Cameroon to make an assessment for itself. Cameroon entered into certain obligations when it joined the Commonwealth in 1995, but it is not honouring those obligations. Its continued membership of the councils of the Commonwealth is therefore in question.

    Iraq
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will investigate the reasons for the recent resignations of (a) Hans von Sponeck and (b) Jutta Burghardt from UN agencies involved in Iraq. [112885]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): No. We are looking forward to the appointment of replacements who will channel their efforts into getting the best out of the United Nations humanitarian programme, as improved and enlarged by Security Council resolution 1284
    Mr. Dalyell: On sanctions, who did Kofi Annan support—von Sponeck and Burghardt, his own officials, or the British or American Governments?
    Mr. Hain: On sanctions, Kofi Annan supported the policy of the United Nations, which is articulated in the new Security Council resolution 1284—on which Britain led in securing its passage through the Security Council. The resolution provides for extra humanitarian relief by lifting the limits on oil for food. It also provides for the suspension of sanctions if Saddam Hussein agrees to an arms inspection regime going in.
    I respect my hon. Friend's interest and close involvement in the Iraqi situation—he deserves credit for that—but I find it most difficult to comprehend what alternative is being proposed by the critics of sanctions. Would they, by lifting sanctions, allow Saddam Hussein the freedom to attack neighbours—as he did in the cases of Iran and Kuwait; to attack the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south; and to continue to attack his own citizens? He has a dreadful, tyrannical record. I have yet to hear a coherent alternative to sanctions, although we must all be concerned about the humanitarian suffering that the United Nations' new resolution is designed to deal with.

Dangerous People with Severe Personality Disorder
3.30 pm
Mr. John Heppell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to the assessment and detention of dangerous people with severe personality disorder.
As the title suggests, the Bill would allow the assessment of individuals with a severe personality disorder and their detention if they were felt to present a danger to the public. It specifies that they should be detained in establishments that provide a reasonable level of security for the public and services for the management and treatment of the disorder, although, unlike at present, it would not be a condition of any detention order that such treatment should be likely to alleviate or prevent deterioration in a person's condition. The Bill would allow for the periodic review of any detention and the release on licence of any individual who was no longer considered to present a danger to the public.
The Bill is not a panacea. It would not deal with everyone with a personality disorder. Some of them present a very low risk, and some no risk at all, to the general public. It would not deal with all paedophiles, although a small proportion of the people whom it would affect may be paedophiles. It would deal only with a small minority of people, but at present the risk that they pose to the public is not dealt with adequately and attempts to treat them are insufficient.
Every day, psychiatrists, psychologists and other clinical specialists, as well as police, probation officers and social workers, make life-and-death decisions about how much risk individuals present to the public and whether that risk has reduced enough to allow them into the community. Those who make the decisions are trying to protect the rights of the individual and the community. The Bill would not change that. Such decisions still have to be made. I recognise that the decisions are not always clear cut and that those who make them are in a no-win situation. Inevitably, sometimes they get it wrong. Often they are criticised for taking someone's liberty away when the risk is low. More often, they are criticised—usually with the benefit of hindsight—for releasing someone into the community who offends or reoffends. I do not want to join in that criticism. I recognise that for every case that goes tragically wrong in a blaze of media attention, there are hundreds in which we have got the balance right and the correct decision has been made. The aim of the Bill is to make it possible for a small number of people to be detained under a similar process when, after a proper assessment, they are shown to be a serious danger to the public.
I am proposing the legislation not because of a morbid interest in the subject or as a theoretical exercise, but because the problem exists and to ignore it and do nothing is not an option. Last year I was faced with the prospect of a special unit being set up in Nottingham prison in my constituency to house paedophiles. My immediate reaction was hostile, as was that of the local press and people in the area. The story was not an example of good communications by those involved. News about the unit leaked out before there had been any consultation, including with me.
168
Because people were not aware of all the facts, many invented their own. Dozens of rumours began to circulate. Because I did not know the truth, I could not squash those rumours. At one stage I was told that 30 paedophiles were coming to the area, some of whom would be resident, while others would visit on a daily basis. I was told that a door would be built in the prison and they would have keys so that they could go in and out as they wanted. It was all nonsense being peddled as truth, but I found it impossible to undo later much of the damage that was done at that time. Many local residents were whipped up into a fury. Without the full facts, that was understandable, but even when we had the facts many questions were left unanswered.
Initially, it was planned to house three dangerous offenders. In the end, only two bedsits were constructed. Two notorious paedophiles are now in occupancy away from the community. Initially I was not thrilled at the prospect. I met my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, Ministers, civil servants and experts in dealing with such offenders. Only then did I realise that the alternative to having them housed inside the prison behind five locked doors, with closed-circuit television cameras and 24-hour surveillance, was for them to go out into the community. Admittedly, that may not have been in Nottingham, but it would be somewhere in the community where they would have much more opportunity to reoffend. I was told that those people would reoffend: not that it was possible or probable, but that it was certain. Everybody agreed on that—the police, the probation service, the psychiatrists and the psychologists.
Unfortunately, as the law stands, if someone is dangerous and a psychiatrist says that they can be treated, they can be held somewhere secure for that treatment. However, if someone is dangerous but a psychiatrist says that they cannot be treated, it is deemed that they cannot be held anywhere. That is not quite as daft as it sounds, and I appreciate why that is the case. Nevertheless, one does not need to be the Lord Chancellor to recognise that, in many circumstances, that is unacceptable.
The six months that the paedophiles have been in Nottingham prison have been a great success. I acknowledge that there has been no incident during that time, and that no child has been at risk. I am sure that children would have been at risk had those people been out in the community. However, that is not a long-term solution, which must involve new legislation and new resources. The Bill is an attempt to develop that long-term solution and to take the first tentative steps towards it.
This is a complex area of law that requires careful legislation. To remove someone's liberty without trial is not a course of action that anyone should contemplate without careful consideration. Unlike some sections of the media, I do not condemn the Government for not introducing legislation. The last thing we need is a knee-jerk reaction to the problem. It was right and proper that, before legislation was embarked upon, there should have been proper consultation with all the relevant agencies. I have used opinion B in the Government's consultation document as the basis of the Bill.
I see the Bill as a practical solution to a real, not theoretical, problem. I am grateful to the agencies which have contacted me and offered advice and constructive criticism: the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, MIND and Liberty have all given good advice on the pitfalls of legislation. I have said to

169
all of them that I see the difficulties and the problems. I recognise that it is important that we get the Bill right and, with careful deliberation, we can get it right. I am determined to press ahead unless someone can furnish me with a real alternative.
Many people were upset when I would not demonstrate against the Government putting two paedophiles in Nottingham prison. The reason for that was not pressure from the Home Secretary, or any other Minister. I was under no pressure—there are no votes in the House on these issues, and no whip is applied. There was not a party line for me to follow. The reason why I would not join others in condemning the proposals was simple: I could think of no real alternative that did not put children at risk. I still think that I was right, and I am in a similar position now in that I see no real alternative to the Bill.
Some of my constituents have offered solutions ranging from marooning those individuals on a desert island to drowning them. The most common solution put forward was the one that seems to be the standard solution proposed to almost every problem—I refer, of course, to chopping off their goolies. I apologise if that is unparliamentary language, Madam Speaker, but that is how it is often put to me. That is not a real option, and we can see that it is neither practical nor possible within the law—and, as has been said, it does not work.
Today, coincidentally, the Select Committee on Home Affairs has published its report on managing dangerous people with severe personality disorders. Some may not believe it, but that is a coincidence. If anyone believes that I have enough influence to persuade the Whips to give me a ten-minute rule Bill spot on the day that the Select Committee produces a report that proposes the same conclusions as my Bill, they must think that I have the same reputation as Machiavelli.
The Bill would provide a good option for dangerous people with severe personality disorders. It would offer them more than they are offered at present and would also offer protection to the public.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Mr. Steve McCabe, Siobhain McDonagh, Mr. Ian Pearson, Ms Bridget Prentice, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. David Taylor, Mr. David Watts and Mr. Phil Woolas.

Dangerous People with Severe Personality Disorder
  DANGEROUS PEOPLE WITH SEVERE PERSONALITY DISORDER
  Mr. John Heppell accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law with respect to the assessment and detention of dangerous people with severe personality disorder: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 88].
Orders of the Day

  Supplementary Vote on Account 2000–01
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply as if the words `(aa) supplementary votes on account for the coming financial year;' were inserted after line 21.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  3.41 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: This matter caught my eye when it was first sneaked on to the Order Paper on Friday. When I read the motion, I began to muse on why the Government would wish to table something that contained the phrase
  shall apply as if the words
  for the consideration of the House, especially on a Friday afternoon. I began to wonder whether some skulduggery was involved.
  I am delighted that the procedures of the House allow for a full and proper debate on the matter which, as I hope to illustrate, is rather more important than the Government believe. The provenance of the motion is, I believe—subject to any correction—Standing Order No. 54, which states:
  Three days, other than Fridays, before 5th August, shall be allotted in each session for the consideration of estimates.
  One of the most important elements of the relationship between the House of Commons and the Executive was always the consideration of the provision of Supply by the House of Commons to the Government. I submit that anything that relates to that should be the subject of a full debate. However, the motion appears to provide—I am, of course, open to correction when the Minister replies—for the matter to be debated in substance but only under the condition that there is no debate after 10 o'clock. That will not do. I suspect that the main business today, which includes several amendments and Third Reading, means that there is only a very slim chance that the substance of later motions will be discussed before 10 o'clock.
  The motion that we are being asked to approve will probably allow later motions to slip through without proper debate. That cannot be acceptable. The helpful introductory note to the supplementary vote on account states:
  The Vote on Account provides finance to allow existing services to continue during the early months of the coming financial year, pending Parliament's consideration of the main Supply Estimates.
  In other words, the motion is a mechanism to allow government to function and to allow the continued spending of moneys before the House has a proper opportunity fully to consider the matters.
  Rather impertinently, it goes on:
  The amounts in the Vote on Account are normally a standard 45 per cent. of the amounts already voted for the corresponding services in the current year.
  That is all very cosy. There is not much opportunity for the House of Commons to give proper consideration to the substance of what it is being asked to agree. The motion was slipped in on Friday, and again late last night. Thanks to the eternal vigilance of an hon. Member whom I am too modest to name, it is now—rightly—the subject of debate on the Floor of the House. However, the motion

  171
  states that there can be no debate after 10 o'clock, and that makes me suspect that the Government believe that the matter will not be properly considered.
  Mr. John Bercow: A moment ago my right hon. Friend demanded a full debate on this matter, but has he noticed that the Leader of the House is not present, even though the motion is in her name? Her deputy, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, is here, however. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government must ensure that the debate continues for as long as is needed for the right hon. Lady to hop, skip and jump to the Chamber?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is normally a charitable man, but he is probably being a bit hard on the Government. I am a fair man, and must concede that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in whose name the vote on account motion has been tabled, has been courteous enough to attend. I am confident that he will give us a full reply to this debate. Perhaps the Leader of the House's deputy will tell us about the procedural matter, and then the Financial Secretary will tell us something about the substance of the motion.
  The final page of the document from which I have quoted leaves me rather confused. The table listing the allocation to votes contains two salient figures. The first is the sum of £7 million, the existing provision voted on account. The second figure is the real substance of the matter—a sum of £1,000 that is to be added to the estimates.
  Normally, I am prepared to go a long way to accept matters at their face value, but that second figure tries me to the limit. The Government have tabled a separate motion, under the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 54 and 55, and it has appeared in the Order Paper on three successive days. When passed, it will secure for the Government additional funding of £1,000. That seems rather odd.
  It is the small size of the Government's request that leads me to think that we should be a given a full explanation. I do not believe that the Treasury is that strapped for cash, as we are led to believe that it is rather flush right now. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will expatiate on the Government's war chest before he explains why he needs the House to vote him an extra £1,000.
  I raise these questions because I do not know the answer to them. I hope that the Minister will tell us why he seeks to detain the House over a sum of £1,000. The footnote to the final table in the document states that the sum includes provision
  for expenditure on the Crown Prosecution Inspectorate which is being set up under the Crown Prosecution Inspectorate Bill which received Third Reading in the House of Lords on 3 February 2000.
  That is a little teasing. If the Government can set up such an inspectorate for £1,000 I shall be more impressed than I usually am at their efficiency. However, if the Minister assures me that that is what he is going to do, I shall be the first to vote for the proposal, to demonstrate the gratitude of the taxpayers of Bromley and Chislehurst. I will take a bit of persuading, however, because something tells me that that is not necessarily the whole story.
  I would like to think that we could have debated the substance later in the day. However, as we will probably not be able to vote on it later in the day—because one
  172
  way or another, I suspect that we will get to 10 o'clock without that opportunity arising—we need to know why the Government are trying to sneak through this measure, whatever the amount may be, without being sufficiently confident of their case to give it a proper opportunity for debate on the Floor of the House. Those are the questions that I want to ask today.
  3.50 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I would like to refine what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has just said. The House is indebted to him for his eagle-eyed attention to the business. At least four questions need to be specifically addressed.
  First, footnote a. to the estimates tells us what is really happening. We are told that the sum shown includes provision for expenditure on the crown prosecution inspectorate. When the word "includes" appears, we can be quite sure that other matters may be included as well. Will the Financial Secretary be good enough to tell us whether any other items of expenditure fall outside that provided for under the crown prosecution inspectorate? Otherwise, the word "includes" would be otiose.
  My second point is about substance. We are being asked to vote £1,000 on account of the crown prosecution inspectorate. I am the first to believe that the inspectorate is a very worthy organisation, but we are entitled to know a little more about it. How many officials are we sanctioning? What will be its annual cost? How many officials have so far been recruited? When does the expenditure start? If we are being asked to vote money, we have a right to answers to those questions.
  Mr. Forth: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend does not assume or expect that the expenditure has already started, since we have not yet approved it. Presumably, he is anticipating it as future expenditure.
  Mr. Hogg: I never make concessions of that kind in favour of the Government. My right hon. Friend raises a very fair point, and I hope that Ministers will address it. We need to know how many staff there will be, when they will be recruited, and when the money will start to be spent.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be a matter of legitimate concern to the House if, in anticipation of the likely approval of the sum of money, applications for staff had already been received, or advertisements in pursuit of staff had been made by the inspectorate? If the House decided not to approve the sum in question, there would be a number of disappointed and angry people with reason to be dissatisfied with the conduct of the Government.
  Mr. Hogg: Interestingly, that point leads to my next question—namely, the relationship between a money resolution and the supplementary estimates. Will the Financial Secretary be good enough to tell us the extent to which the matter has already been covered by a money resolution and, for the purposes of the supplementary estimates before us, the exact relationship between the money resolution, for which he was no doubt responsible, and the supplementary estimates?
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Has not my right hon. and learned Friend touched on the kernel of

  173
  the matter? The expenditure in question relates not to an Act but to a Bill, and it would probably be better approved during the course of proceedings on the Bill. Instead, the House is being asked to authorise expenditure to a body that is not yet law.
  Mr. Hogg: There is a great deal of force in what my hon. Friend says. I have not checked Hansard—that is a failing on my part—but the Ministers who have the conduct of the Bill should have told us of its spending implications when they were taking the matter through the House. They may have done so. It would be helpful if the Minister would tell us what he told the House when the Bill was debated on Second Reading.
  Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that much of what has already been said in this brief debate would have been rendered otiose if, at the beginning of it, the Minister had had the courtesy to explain to the House why he wanted the matter to be approved? Instead, he sits in his place—albeit most courteously and patiently—while we speculate on the matter with no information from him.
  Mr. Hogg: I shall not accuse the Minister of discourtesy; I, too, have been a Minister, so I know what he was hoping. He hoped that my right hon. Friend would not hop to his feet—not an unworthy hope and one that I understand.
  Mr. Bercow: It was unrealistic.
  Mr. Hogg: Indeed—but it was not unworthy. The Minister hoped that the matter would go through on the nod. However, happily from the point of view of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst intervened to ask for a full explanation.
  We are being asked to approve £1,000. Does it include the cost of printing the motion, or is that an additional cost? In order that the matter may be wholly transparent, what is the cost of printing the document?
  3.56 pm
  Mr. William Ross: I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) initiated a debate on the motion, because it proposes certain changes to departmental expenditure in the Northern Ireland Office. The Northern Ireland appropriation order will soon come before the House, but the estimates before us deal with expenditure that falls outwith that order. This debate seems to offer us our only opportunity to consider that increased expenditure. As other hon. Members have pointed out, it is impossible—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to be clear that we are dealing with a procedural motion—not the Northern Ireland Office.
  Mr. Ross: The procedure of the House is that the estimates deal with expenditures in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members have already referred to expenditure elsewhere. I note that the document refers to expenditure in respect of the Saville inquiry—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat repetitious. I have warned him. He is considering the wrong estimates.
  Mr. Ross: I procured the document before me from the Vote Office; it covers the Northern Ireland Office estimates. They do not fall within the appropriation order for Northern Ireland; they are completely different. We rarely debate them in the House—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman that this is a procedural motion; it relates only to one narrow point. If the hon. Gentleman approaches the Chair, I will give him the documents that he may need. In the meantime, perhaps another Member would like to speak.
  3.58 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: I shall try to return to the document that I was given by the Vote Office—I hope it is the same one that you have, Madam Speaker—so that we can have a meaningful dialogue.
  One of the greatest responsibilities on the shoulders of all Members of Parliament, and one of our least-used powers, is the scrutiny and control of expenditure. I have been a Member of the House for 13 years, yet I am still amazed at how often we nod through £1 billion here or £1 billion there. I make no apology for talking about this £1,000; with hindsight, I wish that I had spent more time talking about the billions of pounds.
  The process of wresting control of expenditure from the Executive has been central to the development of the parliamentary democracy that we now enjoy. If we allow that scrutiny and control to wither completely, we should not be surprised if our parliamentary democracy withered and died as well. It is in that spirit that I put my questions about the document to the Minister.
  My first question arises from paragraph 2 of the document's introduction. It states:
  The main Supply Estimates for 2000–01 will be presented in April 2000.
  However, a request has been made under that provision before the main estimates appear before us in April. We are entitled to assume therefore that it is a matter of some urgency. However, the Financial Secretary did not have the courtesy to explain to the House what that urgency is. Before we vote on the matter, I hope that he will explain why this £1,000 is so urgent and why it cannot be dealt with at the same time that the House deals with the estimates involving billions of pounds. I am sure that he will understand why I feel apprehensive. Something is going on that we should know about. Will he either tell us what is going on, or put my mind at rest by offering another explanation? We have yet to hear any explanation whatever.
  My second concern arises from paragraph 4 of the document's introduction, which says:
  The Vote on Account may reflect a higher or lower amount
  than the usual 45 per cent. There is a norm of 45 per cent. for votes on account, but it does not apply to this case. It is an exception and, because it is an exception, there is yet another imperative on the Government to tell us what is so exceptional about the procedure. That would put our suspicious minds at rest. We would then understand the

  175
  Government's integrity and honesty, if not their openness, when it comes to expenditure. Why does this item not involve the standard amount? We need an explanation.
  My third concern relates to sub-paragraph c of paragraph 4. This vote on account is for the sum of £1,000 and sub-paragraph c states that
  if the Supply Estimate is for a token sum of £1,000 for self-financing services, no Vote on Account provision is sought but the continuation of the services in the new financial year is noted.
  From that, we are entitled to conclude that this item is not a self-financing exercise because the House's authority, through a vote on account, is being sought. All my concerns about the role of Parliament in our parliamentary democracy are correct. The estimate is not just a matter of accounting to put things right while money is brought in to pay for something that the Government are doing; it is real expenditure of taxpayers' money. However, we have not been told what it is for. We can look through the document for something that relates to the use of taxpayers' money, but we shall not find it. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us.
  The fourth concern arises out of paragraph 5 of the introduction. It refers to a "token Supplementary Vote", and the word "token" is the one that worries me. The Government are using smoke and mirrors. They want us to agree to giving them £1,000 so that they can do what they like. It is not the sum that the Government want, but just a token. Why have they not had the goodness and decency to tell the House what they are up to and what they really want? Instead, they have shuffled forward with a piece of paper saying, "Give us £1,000." They will then continue to do what they wanted to do in the first place. That is no way to treat Parliament and it is no way for an Executive to operate in a democracy; it is an abuse of democracy.
  Mr. William Ross: I must confess that I am always confused by the way in which the estimates are written. However, it seems that the class V estimate for the Lord Chancellor's Department is £1,625,000,000, so £1,000 will not keep the Department running for very long.
  Mr. Wilshire: That is exactly my point. It is a token sum, and we need to know the real figure.
  You will be relieved to hear, Madam Speaker, that I turn now to my fifth and final point, which also arises from paragraph 5. It says:
  Token additional provision is being sought to draw to the attention of Parliament the intention to use Vote on Account money for the new service specified in the footnote.
  The Government say that the procedure is being used to draw their intention to the attention of the House, but it was not used to draw anything to our attention; it was used twice to get something through on the nod when nobody was looking, in the hope that we would not notice it. Yet here we have a so-called explanation of a wish to draw something to the attention of the House. I offer no apologies to the House for ensuring that we have a proper debate. That is what the Government want, as the document says.
  Mr. Hogg: One way forward for the future might be for the Government to annex to these orders an explanatory memorandum, so we would have the answer in brief form
  176
  before the debate. We might then know whether we collectively wanted to address the matter on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Wilshire: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct. It is essential that we do all in our power to ensure that no Executive—Labour or Conservative—slip money, whether it is £1,000 or £1 billion, past the House, on the nod, late at night. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is to be commended for his vigilance. I feel guilty for not being as vigilant as he is.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am listening to my hon. Friend extremely carefully. Is not he highlighting to the House, badly attended as it is for this debate, the inadequate way in which it deals with votes on Supply and estimates? Will he take note of the increasing concern expressed not only by the Procedure Committee, which I chair, but the Public Accounts Committee and, what is more, the influential Liaison Committee?
  Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I wish him well in his endeavours to ensure that this does not happen again. It is absolutely proper that we debate these issues, and it is remiss of the Government to try to slip them through on the nod and to have offered no details at the start of the debate. The document provides no details; it refers simply to a Bill and a figure, which it says is a token.
  I suggest that the Government read their history books and note that quite a few members of past Executives have ended up in clink, and one or two have lost their heads trying to defy Parliament on taxation.
  4.8 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I join my colleagues in asking questions about the supplementary vote. The Financial Secretary is perfectly entitled to put the request for a supplementary vote before the House, but we are equally entitled to ask questions about it. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for ensuring that we are doing so.
  As I said earlier, it is unfortunate that the new service that is singled out as the justification for the supplementary vote is being set up by a Bill, rather than an Act that has already been passed. The House may well change the nature of the expenditure involved in the Bill before it becomes an Act. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill has only just arrived in the House, and we have not yet properly debated it or seen the various money resolutions that the Financial Secretary may want to attach to it.
  My right hon. Friend may well want to note that paragraph 5 of the Treasury document refers to expenditure for a new service, but the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the Bill says:
  There is no increase in expenditure as a direct result of the Bill.
  The Financial Secretary has come to the House, asking for additional resources, when the explanatory notes to the Bill make it clear that it does not involve an increase in expenditure. I can tell the House that the running costs for the inspectorate are some £2.5 million in the next financial year. Of course, the inspectorate exists already. The purpose of the Bill is to put it on a statutory basis.

  177
  The explanatory notes are more than helpful. They point out that although there is an increase in expenditure in the next year, that is largely the result of the need for the inspectorate to find accommodation separate from the Crown Prosecution Service.
  I repeat: there is no increase in expenditure as a direct result of the Bill. Therefore, I am mystified as to how the Financial Secretary can pick out this item of expenditure and justify it to the House as being needed
  for the new service specified in the footnote to the table.
  That footnote specifically states:
  Includes provision for expenditure on the Crown Prosecution Inspectorate which is being set up under the Crown Prosecution Inspectorate Bill which received Third Reading in the House of Lords.
  Precisely because of the confusion about whether new money is required for the inspectorate to be put on a statutory basis, it would have been better to wait until the Bill had been considered by the House. We could have decided whether or not to assent to the money resolution that the Financial Secretary may or may not table to the Bill. However, he has not done that, so all that we can rely on is the proceedings in another place. I suggest that the Financial Secretary should be asked to take the document away and try again.
  4.11 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I am grateful to Opposition Members for providing me with the opportunity to explain the significance of the supplementary vote on account.
  I remind the House that the purpose of the vote on account is to provide finance to allow existing services to continue during the early months of the coming financial year, pending the consideration by Parliament of the Supply estimates, which take effect from mid-July. Where it is intended that new services currently before Parliament, like the one mentioned in this brief debate, will be funded between 1 April and the passing of the Appropriation Act, that is drawn to Parliament's attention by means of a footnote. That is the standard procedure for dealing with such matters.
  Our Standing Order No. 55(2)(a) covers votes on account and specifies that questions arising from such votes on account should be tabled not later than 6 February. The documentation for the vote on account 2000–01 was submitted last November, and both Houses agreed it on 16 December.
  Because the most appropriate vote for the crown prosecution service inspectorate had not been confirmed by last November, the vote on account 2000–01 did not include a footnote referring to the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill. I am pleased to tell the House that parliamentary progress on that Bill has been faster than anticipated at that time. A supplementary vote on account for spending in the period from the start of the new financial year until mid-July will make it possible to implement Parliament's decision in respect of the Bill when Royal Assent is achieved.
  178
  The motion amends—
  Mr. Fallon: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: I shall give way just once, then I must make progress.
  Mr. Fallon: The Minister is referring to progress on a particular Bill. Will he confirm that the House has not yet started its consideration of that Bill?
  Mr. Timms: Indeed, but the Bill has reached Third Reading in the House of Lords and is on its way to be considered here. It is normal for initial spending on such measures to be authorised in this way.
  The motion amends Standing Order No. 55—
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: No, I cannot give way again.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister give way? He is not short of time.
  Mr. Timms: No, I will not give way again.
  The motion amends Standing Order No. 55 for today, so that we can take the necessary vote on account resolution with the spring estimates to be considered tonight, rather than with the winter supplementary estimates with which the earlier vote on account was taken. That is the standard procedure to meet the requirements of the House when it has to take estimates at times different from those normally allowed for in Standing Orders. For example, that procedure was adopted in January 1992 when the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was a Minister at the Foreign Office, and a supplementary vote on account was required to provide cover for a late new estimate for the European Communities budget. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls that. The procedure is perfectly standard.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Financial Secretary give way?
  Mr. Timms: I shall not give way because I do not want to detain the House longer than necessary.
  The procedure is intended to draw Parliament's attention to the fact that the vote on account will be used to fund an important new service as soon as Royal Assent is given to the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill.
  Opposition Members also referred to the £1,000 token votes. Again, that is standard procedure; there are 13 in the spring supplementary estimate. They are a device for drawing the House's attention to the intention to incur spending on a new service.
  I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 16.

  Division No. 104]

  [4.16 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Crausby, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Allan, Richard

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Allen, Graham

  Cummings, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Darvill, Keith

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davidson, Ian

  Austin, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Baker, Norman

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Dawson, Hilton

  Barron, Kevin

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beard, Nigel

  Dobbin, Jim

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Doran, Frank

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Dowd, Jim

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Drew, David

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Benton, Joe

  Edwards, Huw

  Berry, Roger

  Efford, Clive

  Best, Harold

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Betts, Clive

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blackman, Liz

  Etherington, Bill

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Blizzard, Bob

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Borrow, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Flint, Caroline

  Brake, Tom

  Flynn, Paul

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Breed, Colin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Browne, Desmond

  Gapes, Mike

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burden, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Burgon, Colin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burnett, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burstow, Paul

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Goggins, Paul

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Casale, Roger

  Gunnell, John

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chaytor, David

  Hanson, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clelland, David

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clwyd, Ann

  Healey, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Colman, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Connarty, Michael

  Heppell, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hill, Keith

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Hoey, Kate

  Cousins, Jim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  180

  Hope, Phil

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morley, Elliot

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hurst, Alan

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hutton, John

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Illsley, Eric

  Oaten, Mark

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jamieson, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Öpik, Lembit

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pond, Chris

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pope, Greg

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Purchase, Ken

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

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rapson, Syd

  Kidney, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rendel, David

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Laxton, Bob

  Rooney, Terry

  Lepper, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rowlands, Ted

  Levitt, Tom

  Roy, Frank

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ruane, Chris

  Linton, Martin

  Ruddock, Joan

  Livsey, Richard

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lock, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Love, Andrew

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCabe, Steve

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonnell, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McFall, John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McIsaac, Shona

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  MacShane, Denis

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Martlew, Eric

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Maxton, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Merron, Gillian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stevenson, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moore, Michael

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stringer, Graham

  181

  Stunell, Andrew

  Tynan, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Watts, David

  Webb, Steve

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  White, Brian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wilson, Brian

  Tipping Paddy

  Winnick, David

  Todd,Mark

  Wood, Mike

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Woolas, Phil

  Touhig, Don

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Tyler, Paul

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  NOES

  Chope, Christopher

  Shepherd, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Townend, John

  Fallen, Michael

  Wardle, Charles

  Gill, Christopher

  Wilkinson, John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robathan, Andrew

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Mr. David Wilshire.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply as if the words `(aa) supplementary votes on account for the coming financial year;' were inserted after line 21.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
As amended in the Committee and in the Standing Committee, further considered.
Clause 63

  SPECIAL PROVISION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND PARTIES
  4.29 pm
  Mr. Robert Walter: I beg to move amendment No. 152, in page 40, line 15, leave out clause 63.
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 24.
  Amendment No. 169, in page 40, line 18, after "party", insert—
  `with its Headquarters and/or registered office in Northern Ireland.'.
  Amendment No. 170, in page 40, line 19, leave out—
  `such period as is specified'
  and insert—
  'a period of one year'.
  Amendment No. 171, in page 40, line 23, leave out—
  `such period as is specified'
  and insert—
  'a period of one year'.
  Amendment No. 166, in page 40, line 25, at end add—
  '(1 A) The Secretary of State may by order further extend the periods laid down under subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (1)(b)(ii) above, but no further period of extension shall be for more than one year and there may be no more than two such further extensions.'.
  Amendment No. 167, in page 40, line 26, at end add
  'a party which has its headquarters, UK headquarters or registered office in Northern Ireland which is.'.
  Amendment No. 168, in page 40, line 27, leave out "one" and insert "six".
  Amendment No. 172, in page 40, line 29, leave out "one" and insert "four".
  Amendment No. 173, in page 40, line 30, after "Commons" insert—
  `who have taken the oath or made the affirmation and are'.
  Amendment No. 164, in page 40, line 33, at end add—
  '(4) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) (b) above unless the following conditions are satisfied—

  (a) a draft of the order has been submitted to the Electoral Commission; and

  (b) the Commission has stated that, in its opinion, the contents of the draft order are compatible with the effective enforcement in individual cases of the provisions of section 54 relating to evasion of restrictions on donations.'.

  Amendment No. 174, in clause 144, page 92, line 13, at end add—`(aa) section 63 (1A)'.
  Mr. Walter: Many hours have been spent in the House discussing the situation in Northern Ireland. The clause that we seek to delete gives the Secretary of State power to make special provision for Northern Ireland parties.

  183
  I think that there is agreement on both sides of the House on the necessity of the peace process. I think also that there is agreement that we wish to see a normal economic and political climate return to Northern Ireland. While not wishing to labour another debate on Northern Ireland and the current state of the peace process, we are debating a clause that would exacerbate the current failure of the peace process. That is, the failure to deliver a return to democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. If clause 63 remains part of the Bill, that failure will be compounded.
  It is an affront to the people of Northern Ireland to make special provision for supporters of and sympathisers with terrorism. It is an affront to the political parties of Northern Ireland represented in the House of Commons—those Members who have taken the Oath and taken their seat—to allow others, the friends of terror, special privileges denied to parties in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that the affront is even greater than he describes? The clause confers a power to make orders that are subject to the negative procedure, not the affirmative procedure. In consequence, the Secretary of State can exercise his power to extend the range of permitted donors without obtaining an affirmative vote in the House.
  Mr. Walter: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right: clause 63, like other clauses, gives the Secretary of State such powers. We shall discuss that issue later.
  The basic premise behind the amendment is that there should not be special provisions for Northern Ireland. Lord Neill suggested that provisions should exist, because there were special circumstances in Northern Ireland. I do not entirely accept all his arguments in that respect. The Neill report reached us in October 1998, and the game has moved on since then. The report reached us after the signing of the Good Friday agreement, but before the election and creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive. In addition, the report reached us before Sinn Fein—to name but one Northern Ireland political party—became an effective part of the political process. The rest, as they say, is history.
  If Great Britain is to be subject to the requirements for financial propriety and transparency enshrined in the Bill, it is unacceptable that a part of the United Kingdom with the most vivid history of political corruption should be excluded from the provisions of the Neill report. I do not want to go over Northern Ireland's political history, but I emphasise that it would be wrong effectively to turn a blind eye to practices that have been declared unacceptable in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  I hope that, as a result of the events of the past year, there will be an end to the violence used to further political causes in Northern Ireland. Like other hon. Members, I hope and believe that the arms that have been used by terrorists will be handed in and decommissioned. I wonder when that will happen, although that is a subject to be debated another time. Over the years, intimidation has been used to a great extent in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we must not, by allowing the clause to remain part of the Bill, create an environment in which it is perpetuated.
  Mr. John Bercow: Among other attributes, my hon. Friend has a fertile imagination.
  184
  Why should the clause provide for a possible extension of the categories of permissible donors, given that six such categories are already provided for in clause 48(2)?
  Mr. Walter: The Committee considered the issue of why, having introduced a regime in Great Britain in which foreign donors were precluded from funding our political parties, and having laid down specific categories of permissible donors, we should allow the Secretary of State to announce exclusions in respect of political parties whose financial and democratic propriety some of us might call into question.
  Mr. Hogg: The effect of the proposal in clause 63(1)(b), if it stands as it is, is that a foreign donor could be brought within the class of those deemed to be permissible donors. Not only that, but a foreign donor could be excluded by the Secretary of State from the requirement to give specified information.
  Mr. Walter: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. We discussed in Committee the possibility of permitting donors from the Irish Republic to make donations to political parties not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and I made it clear in Committee that we were not prepared to tolerate a situation in which donors in the United States or other foreign countries could continue to fund the activities of Northern Ireland political parties, as they have done in the past, and thus get away with funding the forces of terror, of which we have seen the effects in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: If permissible sources were to include citizens of the Irish Republic, the Neill committee makes it clear in paragraph 5.41 of its report that
  there would exist the possibility of overseas donations reaching the Republic,
  and thereby Northern Ireland. This clause would be a facilitator for Noraid and all its works.
  Mr. Walter: Not only that, but the clause specifically does not mention the Republic of Ireland. It allows exemptions to be made regarding the list of permissible donors that would enable Noraid and any other organisation, whether in the United States or elsewhere, to fund Northern Ireland political parties. It is within the Secretary of State's power to specify which political parties he wishes to exempt from the rule. As the Bill is drafted, he could specify just one party to be exempted, so he might feel it politically expedient to specify a party that has traditionally received most of its funding from the United States, and perpetuate a situation that the rest of us in the House would regard as completely unacceptable.
  Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for giving way so generously. Is there not another risk? I am not accusing the Government of having this in mind, but we must face the consequences. Any Government at some time in the future could use these exempting powers to assist the funding of a

  185
  particular party with which that Government—not this one—had friendly relations. The exempting powers can be used in a partisan manner.
  Mr. Walter: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. These powers can be used not only for political expediency, but in a partisan way by a political party that wants to aid and abet its friends in the north of Ireland.
  Mr. Bercow: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has just raised a serious point. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on the House to have serious regard to the possibility not only of a future abuse occurring under a future Secretary of State, but of an abuse by the present incumbent of the office, who, for all his distinctive talents, is a distinctly manipulative specimen?
  Mr. Walter: We can only presume from the fact that the Government have included clause 63 that, when drafting the Bill, they speculated about the possibility that they would want to use it and to make an exemption for a particular Northern Ireland party—or, possibly, a number of Northern Ireland parties—allowing that party, or those parties, to receive funds from foreign sources that are denied to the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Walter: I will give way for the last time to the Minister.
  Mr. O'Brien: In fact, the hon. Gentleman has not given way before this occasion, but I am grateful to him for doing so.
  Our amendment No. 24 will ensure that any order under clause 63 applies to all Northern Ireland parties. It will not be possible to specify particular parties.
  Mr. Hogg: That is not in the Bill.
  Mr. O'Brien: We tabled the amendment in response to concerns expressed in Committee.
  I hope that what I have said reassures the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that such mendacious thoughts are not in our minds.
  Mr. Walter: I am cognisant of the amendment, but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out, the provision is not yet in the Bill. Moreover, I fear that if the clause were altered to refer to "each" rather than "a" Northern Ireland party, as the amendment suggests, another can of worms would be opened in connection with political parties engaging in activities not only in Northern Ireland but in other parts of the United Kingdom. We shall, in the context of other parts of the Bill, discuss problems that could arise in regard to parties that might have sister organisations in different parts of the United Kingdom. I think that deleting clause 63, as amendment No. 152 suggests, is the simplest and most straightforward way of dealing with the matter.
  186
  Let me return to the Neill report, and the White Paper that constitutes the Government's response to it. I want—without prejudging anything that Northern Ireland Members may say later—to quote the Unionist parties' response to the White Paper. They adopted a more or less unanimous view:
  It is not acceptable to argue that Northern Ireland must be treated differently because Sinn Fein are organised on an all-island basis. The same law should apply to all parties which stand for election in the United Kingdom. This should not be dismissed as a political point. The fact that it is difficult to police donations to the Republican Movement is no excuse for not trying.
  It is donations to the republican movement with which we are concerned here, and cutting off the flow of funds to that movement should be at the forefront of our minds when we consider clause 63.
  I wholeheartedly agree with the Unionist parties' view that there is no excuse for not trying to police political donations, as we shall do in the rest of the United Kingdom—although it will be difficult, partly because some donations to Northern Ireland parties, and to nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, come from foreign sources. If contributions from the Scottish and Welsh diasporas are from impermissible sources, they will be rejected by the treasurers of those parties. There is no reason why the treasurer of a Northern Ireland party should not similarly reject donations from people who are not permissible donors within the meaning of the Bill. If Northern Ireland is to be regarded, as we believe it should be, as an integral part of the United Kingdom, it should be subject to the rules that apply to the rest of the UK, including those relating to donations to political parties.
  4.45 pm
  We do not want the Secretary of State to have the power to make orders that relate only to Northern Ireland, to one Northern Ireland party, to several Northern Ireland parties, or to all the Northern Ireland parties. It might have been politically expedient for the Government to suggest that Sinn Fein—the party that immediately comes to mind—should be exempt from various provisions or regulations that apply to other parties: but it should not. We cannot have one rule for one party, or group of parties, because it is politically expedient, and another rule for other parties. The basic premise behind the amendment is that the same rules must apply to all parties in Northern Ireland as apply to all parties in the rest of the UK.
  Mr. Martin Linton: I look forward to hearing what Ministers can report about the discussions that have been going on with parties in Northern Ireland. As they know, my amendment, No. 164, is concerned not so much with the Republic of Ireland as with the possibility that the clause could be used to enable donations from other countries to find their way to this country.
  My concern lies not so much with clause 63 as with clause 54, which makes it an offence to give false information; indeed, it is punishable by a year in jail. However, it is only an offence for a UK citizen. Even if it is committed by a UK citizen, it can be investigated only if it is committed in this country.
  A London banker who gives, shall we say, £5 million to a Euro-federalist party could be investigated under clause 54 to see whether the money had really come

  187
  from him, but a Dublin banker who gives £5 million to Sinn Fein, or, indeed, to the Ulster Unionist Council would not be breaking an Irish law and would not be subject to British law. Because, presumably, those offences would not be covered by Interpol, people will not be extraditable for party funding fraud.
  I come back to the simple proposition: we can ban foreign funding, one of the fundamental purposes of the Bill, only from people who are subject to British law. As it stands, the Bill creates a new type of permissible donor, who is beyond its reach because he or she is an Irish citizen living in the Republic of Ireland. That opens the way to what has been described as re-routing, where money can go from, for example, an American citizen to an Irish citizen, from an Irish citizen to a Northern Ireland political party and, indeed, from a Northern Ireland political party to a British political party. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can prevail on the Taoiseach to introduce a Bill as part of the peace process banning Irish citizens from acting as conduits for donors to UK parties.
  I understand that the talks with the Northern Ireland parties may touch on those possibilities, but there has to be some fire-break—I believe that discussions have taken place on the matter—between Belfast and London parties, so that money cannot pass between them. I look forward to hearing how those particular problems can be addressed.
  What if the same party qualifies as both a Northern Ireland party and a British party? Conservative Members have not mentioned that possible self-interest in the clause. In recent years, the only party in the House that comes remotely close to being simultaneously a British and a Northern Ireland party has been the Conservative party.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: In view of our amendment No. 152, I fail entirely to see where in the clause self-interest lies for Conservative Members. We wish funding of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland to be subject to exactly the same stringencies as those faced by the Conservative party anywhere else. Nevertheless, I should be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's views on the matter. It does not seem to me right in principle that—should we choose to do so, and if it is done legitimately and in accordance with the rules that the hon. Gentleman himself wants to be implemented—money should not pass between the Conservative party in Northern Ireland and the Conservative party in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Linton: I do not suggest that Conservative Members have a self-interest in amendment No. 152, but only that their interest as a party could be affected by the Bill's current provisions. Like Conservative Members, I am trying to ensure that, in creating special exemptions for citizens of the Republic of Ireland—whatever they may think of that—we do not inadvertently affect the efficacy of the rules against overseas funding and of the enforcement of those rules as provided for in the Bill. If a Northern Ireland party gives money to a person who subsequently gives it to a British political party, it might not be in breach of the legislation.
  I hope that we shall eventually hear the outcome of the talks. My simple principle is that, in the Bill, a permissible source must be an investigatable source. Regrettably,
  188
  therefore, all permissible donors would have to be residents of the United Kingdom, unless there is some way in which residents of the Republic also could be investigated.
  The Neill committee applied that principle to Irish donors, and said that Irish donors should not only be registered to vote in Ireland, but resident in Ireland. The committee's intention, although it is not specifically reiterated in the Bill, was to limit the exemption to residents—not only citizens—of the Republic of Ireland.
  Mr. Hogg: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument, for which I have much sympathy. Does he accept—reverting to the Disqualifications Bill, which the House debated some time ago; I think that he may have spoken in that debate—that one cannot both argue the position that he is advancing now and support the Government's position on the Disqualifications Bill? I therefore hope that he will give consideration to his position on the latter matter.
  Mr. Linton: I neither spoke—to the best of my recollection—in the debate on the Disqualifications Bill, nor understand where the alleged contradiction lies.
  Mr. Hogg: The Bill proposes excluding—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We cannot have the debate conducted from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Hogg: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's apology.
  Mr. Linton: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will enlighten me in due course.
  The Neill committee's concern was to allow residents and citizens of the Republic of Ireland to contribute to Irish parties. I well understand the argument for that, as an integral part of the peace process is the principle that all people in Ireland should be able to participate in the political process in all parts of Ireland. It is an unfortunate truth that, to accomplish that, we may undermine the Bill's efficacy.
  I appreciate the difficulties involved in the matter, and I do not have a solution. I tabled amendment No. 164 simply to ensure that the warning is heard loud and clear. For almost 50 years, we have had an election law that has been rendered ineffective by a very simple loophole. A finding by the courts, in 1952, in the so-called Tronoh Mines case, rendered totally ineffective limits on candidates' spending by allowing spending on national campaigns to escape the ban provided that they did not mention a candidate's name. Although it is a simple matter to put right, it has taken almost 50 years to plug that simple loophole. However good our motives, therefore, it is essential that we do not create another loophole.
  Mr. William Ross: I have tabled several amendments in this group and I have also added my name to the Conservative amendment No. 152.

  189
  I listened to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) with interest. Like most others who talk about Northern Ireland, he referred to the peace process. I concluded long ago that it was not a peace process, but simply an appeasement process, which has gone on apace for far too long. I was also interested that he was against special provisions being made for Northern Ireland.
  The reason for such special provisions is evident: it is to make Northern Ireland different and then use that difference as an excuse for further separate provisions. It becomes a vicious circle. We do not want Northern Ireland to be different—we want it to be as much like the rest of the United Kingdom as possible. It has become clear over the years that only when the Province is fully integrated in every way into the United Kingdom can the violence and the horrors that we have seen be contained. Those who try to tell us that they can be contained in an all-Ireland ambit miss the point. There are 1 million people in Northern Ireland who do not want to be part of an all-Ireland republic. They have steadily voted against it and no doubt they will go on doing so. The proportions of those who are nationalist and Unionist in Northern Ireland have not changed much in the past 80 years, and I see no prospect of them changing. When differences are created, the Unionist population see them not as an attempt to address a real problem, but as an attempt by the Government to push them in a direction in which they do not want to go. Pushing majorities in a direction in which they do not want to go is dangerous and is not a course of action that should commend itself to anyone.
  My first amendment is No. 169. The aim is to ensure that each of the parties covered by the clause has a point of authority within Northern Ireland that exercises oversight of the party there. It is essential to ring-fence expenditure on elections in Northern Ireland to those who stand within the boundaries of Northern Ireland. The Government should accept that principle and apply it as swiftly as possible.
  The amendment could mean that a United Kingdom or Great Britain party would need such an office. Reference has already been made to the position of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland. However, in practice it would bear only on Sinn Fein, which, as we all know, is one of the public political faces of terrorism. No one seriously questions that proposition. It is a fact that the leading members of Sinn Fein are also members of the IRA and are known to be its leaders. It may not be possible to prove that in court, but if Ministers get a full-blown security briefing, they will find that the intelligence on the people concerned would convince even the most doubtful.
  Clause 63(l)(a)(i) refers to "a Northern Ireland party". Government amendment No. 24 would change that to "each Northern Ireland party". That needs closer examination. By referring to Northern Ireland parties, the Government appear to have excluded Sinn Fein—which is an all-Ireland party—from the scope of the Bill. If the Minister's officials have not yet addressed that matter, no doubt they will before he replies. In any case, I am not certain that using "each" instead of "a" improves the Bill.
  5 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his amendment No. 169 would not discriminate against the Women's
  190
  Coalition or the Progressive Unionist party, but that amendment No. 168 would because of the numbers of Members that each party has in the now-suspended Northern Ireland Assembly? Also, would not amendment No. 172 discriminate against my hon. Friends who are members of the Social Democratic and Labour party?
  Mr. Ross: The intention is to make it difficult for the terrorist parties. All the parties that the hon. Gentleman has named are not involved in terrorism, as far as I know. The Women's Coalition and the SDLP are perfectly legitimate parties. They would not be affected because they are not getting money from across the border. If they were, that would be interesting information.
  Dr. Godman: Am I right that each of the two parties to which I referred has just two members in the legislative Assembly? I ask the hon. Gentleman again—would not his amendment No. 168 discriminate against the Women's Coalition and the Progressive Unionist party? What kind of message does that send to the smaller parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly?
  Mr. Ross: I am not really concerned about those parties. The number of votes that those parties get is so small that it is doubtful whether they would gain election in a normal election. When everything settles down, those parties will almost certainly disappear. I am aiming at the one party that is the terrorist front.
  Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman should try to answer the question.
  Mr. Ross: I think that I have answered it. I am not all that concerned about the tiny parties, but I am concerned with the terrorist front and the IRA. The amendments are aimed at the IRA, and the hon. Gentleman is raising red herrings because he knows perfectly well what my amendments intend to do.
  Mr. Hogg: I acknowledge the democratic credentials of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). As I understand the Bill, the definition of a Northern Ireland party includes the requirement for representation in this place or in the Northern Ireland Assembly. If a democratic party has not achieved representation in one or the other, it cannot benefit from the provisions of clause 63, as it now stands. That sounds to me to be extremely discriminatory.
  Mr. Ross: I recognise what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. If the Northern Ireland Assembly were to disappear, the parties about which the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is concerned would not be caught by the Bill's provisions in any case. If he wanted to protect them, he should have tabled his own amendments to prevent them from being swept away from the political scene in those circumstances.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I would appreciate clarification from the hon. Gentleman of amendments Nos. 168 and 172. It seems to me that the amendments would bite not on Sinn Fein, but on a number of other parties, such as the Northern Ireland Unionist party, the United Unionist Assembly party, the Progressive Unionist party and the

  191
  United Kingdom Unionist party which have four, three, two and one representatives respectively in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  Mr. Ross: The Minister knows that I have said that I am not all that concerned about those tiny parties. If an election were held tomorrow, they would have no representative in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am trying to get at the terrorists' face, and I believe that my amendments would bear heavily upon that.
  The plain truth is that the Minister has not explained to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who is a well-known barrister, how a Northern Ireland party is defined by membership of the bodies named in the Bill. Suppose that the Northern Ireland Assembly disappears—we would then be left with a situation in which several parties could no longer be defined as Northern Ireland parties.
  Can Sinn Fein be defined as a Northern Ireland party? In one sense it is, but in another it is not because it is an all-Ireland party, which is totally different. The courts might take a dim view of the definition, which will almost certainly be challenged as it stands. The Unionist party might find itself in some difficulty if it decided to fight elections in Great Britain. Could it then get away without declaring the source of its donations? The party might find support in some areas of Great Britain, and the SDLP or Sinn Fein might find support in other areas.
  The provision is not so much a loophole as a gaping barn door. If it is left open, it could admit all sorts of as yet unforeseen evils. We never really know what will happen or what will be the consequences of leaving such a concession in the Bill with the clear intention of benefiting one party. If the Bill did hammer Sinn Fein, I would be happy to withdraw all my amendments, but I am presently inclined to press them to a Division.
  Recent speculation in the press has suggested that parties in the Irish Republic would like to forge ties with the SDLP. Indeed, it would appear that advances have already been made to the SDLP by the Irish Republic's Labour party and by Fianna Fail. The SDLP is, no doubt, considering those offers in the light of the effect that they might have, both in total and in the border areas.
  The aim of my amendments is to create a ring fence, inside which the Northern Ireland section of any party would have to conduct its financial affairs. The parties would be so tightly ring-fenced that their accounts would be public, the sources of their income would be public, with everyone knowing exactly what was going on, and their behaviour and activities would fall within the jurisdiction of the UK courts so that this legislation could be enforced.
  It was well demonstrated by the hon. Member for North Dorset that currently there is much scope for the movement of money, which either could not be traced or would be legal. However, if the same activity were carried out in Great Britain, it would be totally illegal and the perpetrators could go to prison for it. As drafted, the Bill simply means that Northern Ireland parties would be able to do things that would bring prosecution and retribution in the courts in Great Britain. That must be wrong, because we all operate in the same nation and under the same rod of electoral law, not least to get elected as Members of Parliament.
  192
  The Government claim that they are trying to get rid of even the faintest trace of fraud and corruption from the electoral process. However, they are deliberately leaving this great barn door gaping open in Northern Ireland. I think that that barn door should be closed.
  We need not ask why the Government have left the concession in the Bill. The Government know that Sinn Fein-IRA would simply break the law anyway, but they are running away from that confrontation and intend to allow in Northern Ireland what would be illegal in Great Britain. That should not be acceptable to any Member of Parliament, never mind only Opposition Members.
  The Government are also refusing to take on the one organised and mass corruption of the electoral process anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is because that corruption, backed up with violence, has been so successful that the Government have failed to live up to their moral and political obligations. Evil can neither be beaten nor contained within reasonably narrow limits if we do not face up to it. We must divide it first, as a prelude to its elimination. The amendments are the first line of defence and should be accepted.
  Amendments Nos. 171 and 170 would limit to one year the period of freedom to corrupt. Amendment No. 166, with amendment No. 174, would ensure that the maximum period of grace for Sinn Fein-IRA would be limited to three years. At present there is no limit to the free hand given to that murderous organisation in this matter, but a maximum limit should be set. All the amendments would close down the freedom of Sinn Fein-IRA to corrupt the electoral process.
  Amendments Nos. 167 and 173 would require a registered party to abide by the rules accepted by the other parties. Amendment No. 167 would ring-fence a party's financial structure. Amendment No. 168 would mean that a party would have to boast six Assembly Members before it could benefit from the Government's concession to terrorist violence. The tiny parties will not be taking advantage of the concession, so in practice it will have no effect on them. They would escape the problems that I am trying to inflict on Sinn Fein-IRA.
  Amendment No. 173 would ensure that only those who take the oath or make the affirmation after election to this House could benefit from the concession. All parties elected to this House or to the Northern Ireland Assembly should accept the standards of democracy accepted by the rest of us. If they are not required to do that, the signal to the terrorist organisations would be clear.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand my hon. Friend's argument, but does he agree that recognition of a party as bona fide could depend on its having one elected member or receiving a specific number of votes?
  Mr. Ross: I do not care particularly how we separate evil people from democrats, I just want it done. If my amendments do not accomplish that, the Government still have time, even so late in the Bill's process through the House, to table amendments to that end.
  Amendment No. 152 is the best solution of all. However, hon. Members might care to study starred amendment No. 183, which would take care of the element in schedule 6 that bears on this section of the Bill. It would be a great advantage if the IRA and its political face had to abide by United Kingdom law.

  193
  It should have to keep within the law, rather than be allowed to do what it wants and bring in huge sums of money. I understand that as taxation is global, the money going to the violent Republican movement is also global in terms of how it is spent. We have a right to try and tie these people down as much as we can.
  5.15 pm
  There is no benefit to democrats in including these concessions to terror in the electoral law of this kingdom. Rather, they will only damage the democratic parties, and the SDLP more than most. They will be of great benefit to those who believe in the philosophy of the armalite in one hand and the ballot paper in the other.
  The past behaviour of Sinn Fein-IRA makes it plain that fear of the bullet—fear of violence—can determine a ballot's outcome. I recall an incident of which I became aware after an election. A certain gentleman who had served very many years in prison discovered that the turnout from a local estate was not all that he wished. He and a few of his friends started to visit it. There was no threatening behaviour—their mere presence was sufficient. The rush in the last hour of voting was quite remarkable. Members of the House who have not seen such behaviour in action do not know the fear that these people can inspire in the community—the sheer terror that someone might some day find out exactly how a ballot was cast is sufficient to undermine and corrupt the electoral process. Giving them these concessions increases their capacity to do that. The House should not allow that to happen.
  The provisions do not defend democracy, they betray them at the behest of those who occupy their current political positions by a policy of murder, mutilation and craven appeasement. I hope that the House will accept the amendments, or, if not, the Government will come up with something that accomplishes the same end.
  Dr. Godman: I support the Government, and do not have much sympathy for the arguments expressed by the hon. Members for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I point out to the hon. Gentleman that I share his hatred of the terrorists on both sides of the divide and their political apologists, wherever they are found. Just yesterday, I visited a Royal Ulster Constabulary station in the Markets area and met the young RUC sergeant who recently won a community policeman award. I also had a meeting with General de Chastelain, so I have some knowledge of these matters.
  I am concerned about the discrimination inherent in amendment No. 168. That is why I asked the hon. Member for East Londonderry whether it discriminated against the Women's Coalition, which has two Members in the legislative assembly, and the Progressive Unionist party, which also has two Members. The hon. Gentleman swept that to one side. He argued, as part of his case, that they are likely to disappear at the next election. That prediction weakens and dismantles his case. After all, some of his hon. Friends might disappear at the next election and so might some of mine. However, we cannot discriminate against the members of small parties who have secured their seats under what the hon. Gentleman called our broad electoral law. Those Members of the
  194
  legislative Assembly won their seats fair and square, according to the electoral system. The same is true of the Scottish Parliament. Its electoral system may be different from ours, but it is utterly legal and its Members won fair and square.
  As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department pointed out from the Dispatch Box, the amendment would affect not only members of the Women's Coalition or the PUP, but fellow Unionists in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  Mr. Ross: May I turn the hon. Gentleman's argument around? If it is unfair to discriminate against small parties, is it fair to pass legislation that can only be described as discriminating in favour of a terrorist organisation?
  Dr. Godman: The anomaly is that Sinn Fein—normally referred to by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues as Sinn Fein-IRA—Members of the Assembly would not be discriminated against if the hon. Gentleman's amendment were to be accepted. However, small parties that represent the voices and views of segments of the Northern Ireland electorate would be harshly discriminated against. The hon. Gentleman shows no concern for them.
  The week before last, I met representatives of the Women's Coalition and elected Members of the PUP. They are just as hard working as Members of other parties in the Assembly—which I hope will soon be reinstituted.
  I asked the hon. Gentleman whether amendment No. 172 would discriminate against the three SDLP Members who sit on the Labour Benches of this House. It was interesting that his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked a similar question. We cannot discriminate against small parties on the basis that they may disappear at the next election; they might increase their numbers.
  Mr. Hogg: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. If he is right about that point, why does the Bill provide that political parties that have representation neither in this House nor the Assembly will not benefit under clause 63?
  Dr. Godman: I need to be careful in my reply, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Government will introduce an amendment to deal with the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  I am deeply concerned about the disregard shown to parties that have a small number of Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am also concerned about my hon. Friends who are SDLP Members of this House. Incidentally, if they are to join with any parties south of the border, I hope that they sign up with the Labour party rather than—
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Fianna Fail.
  Dr. Godman: The Labour party would be my preference, although I know many members of both parties.
  I am sorry if I have been harsh with the hon. Member for East Londonderry, but I cannot stand such discrimination against small parties. Members of small parties in the Scottish Parliament represent their

  195
  constituents reasonably. We should not discriminate against people such as Monica McWilliams and others who represent small parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman allege that the SDLP, for instance, receives money from the Irish Republic? Does he allege that any of the other small parties that he named are receiving money from America, the Irish Republic or anywhere else? Surely, they all raise their money in Northern Ireland, so the provision would be no great hardship to them.
  Dr. Godman: I shall ask Monica McWilliams about that the next time I speak to her. I do not know whether the Women's Coalition has received a bob or two— or a punt or two—from south of the border to help with election expenses. I do not imagine that David Ervine would have received much from south of the border. That is a question that needs to be asked of the small parties.
  The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that Members representing those small parties share our abhorrence of the terrorists and their political apologists. However, I will vote against his amendments if he presses them to a Division because of the blatant discrimination that they show to the small parties and their representatives—albeit few in number—who grace an Assembly that is unfortunately suspended at the moment.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), but with some diffidence, partly because of what I heard from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I dissociate myself from several of the arguments that he advanced.
  I refer back to the debate in Committee on the clause. At that time, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office was far from satisfied with its wording. He said:
  Clause 63 is unsatisfactory, but, as I said earlier, we are dealing with that.
  The issue is whether any of the amendments deal with the problem. He added:
  the provisions in clause 63 are temporary … I hope and believe that the provisions in clause 63 will eventually become unnecessary.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 1 February 2000; c. 197.]
  He was clearly not persuaded that the Government had got the form and shape of clause 63 in good order. However, I do not believe that this amendment has got to the heart of the difficulties.
  I repeat a point that I made in Committee. The situation in Northern Ireland has long required special rules so that democracy can be maintained. Provisions in the Representation of the People Act 2000 are designed essentially to ensure that democratic elections can be held in Northern Ireland. They appear in the Act in such a form that they could be applied in the rest of the United Kingdom if one wished to do so, but their essential aim is to make the democratic system a functioning proposition in Northern Ireland. That is surely the way that we should approach the matter.
  If we have a special difficulty, it is not the normal form for the United Kingdom legislature to run away from it and to say, "Let them get on with it". The normal form is for us to think of ways of regulating and controlling the problem. The Bill itself acknowledges that fact. For a long
  196
  time, action on the funding of political parties was delayed on the grounds of, perhaps, self-interest and of the perceived difficulty of introducing a regime that could effectively regulate the matter.
  The Government have finally bitten the bullet and, through this Bill, have introduced provisions that will control national expenditure on elections. It is perverse therefore that we should say that there is one part of the United Kingdom where we cannot find a way of getting on top of the problem and that we need clause 63 to run away from it. This clause is based on the wrong underlying philosophy and the wrong legislative theory.
  As the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said, the essence of the problem lies with the concept of permissible donors. One must study the Bill deeply to grasp entirely all the language in it, but, under these provisions, anyone in the world—never mind southern Ireland—can make a contribution to a United Kingdom political party with complete impunity. As has been hinted at, there does not appear to be an effective way of preventing that money from coming into mainstream, mainland political funding as well.
  That process may not be very likely. If the working example is Sinn Fein, it is improbable that it will channel money to the Conservative party, the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats. However, we have to consider the consequences of the structure that is being put in place. One of the consequences is that money can come from anywhere in the world to a party in Northern Ireland without let or hindrance. It is only one short step, which is not prohibited by the Bill, to that money flowing from a Northern Ireland party into mainstream politics on the mainland.
  5.30 pm
  That is my main concern. I do not share the concerns of the hon. Member for East Londonderry. I do not want terrorist parties on either side of the argument in Northern Ireland to flourish, but I recognise that a significant amount of the funding of some of those parties, on both sides of the divide, comes not from foreign sources but from rampant protection rackets in the Province. There are other sources of money flowing into the political body of Northern Ireland, and they ought to be of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  What concerns me and leads me to support the deletion of clause 63 is the fact that the clause may create a loophole that could lead to a complete bypassing of all the good work in the rest of the Bill.
  In Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) expressed his concern about single interest parties, which might prosper in Northern Ireland and Glasgow. He could see no way in which special interest parties—he had in mind pro-life parties—could be prevented from using Northern Ireland as a stepping stone to funding their activities in the United Kingdom, using money from overseas sources, and the Minister could offer him no reassurance on that point.
  I do not associate myself with the arguments of the hon. Member for East Londonderry.
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that all the amendments in my name relate to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Greenock and

  197
  Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), but most of them relate to restricting the time for which the legislation can be permitted to run to one year or to a maximum of three years.
  Mr. Stunell: I accept that the wording of the hon. Gentleman's amendments would, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) indicated, have apparently unintended effects, but my point is that I do not identify with the arguments that the hon. Member for East Londonderry used to support those amendments.
  The Government should accept the point made in Committee that the clause is unsatisfactory. Their amendment does not correct that point.
  Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman took the time of the House last night to ask for a solution on federal parties. We discussed that, and he knows that the Government are minded to try to find a way forward. I also indicated in Committee and in the House last night that we could not introduce amendments to construct a fire wall between Northern Ireland and the mainland until the federal issue had been resolved. There is no lack of initiative or desire for progress on our part; there is a fundamental difficulty that prevents that progress.
  Mr. Stunell: I appreciate the Minister's remarks, and I thank him for recalling what he said last night, which was appreciated and understood. However, the Government amendment leads my colleagues and I to support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Dorset.
  Mr. Hogg: In rising to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) in speaking to his amendment, I shall address five matters, albeit fairly briefly.
  The first point is one that I have made many times in the House, but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I repeat myself. It concerns the order-making powers. The powers that we are giving to the Secretary of State are substantial. They enable the Secretary of State to enlarge the category of permissible donors so as to extend it, for example, to foreign donors, if that is what is decided. That is a large power to give to the Secretary of Secretary.
  We are also enabling the Secretary of State to disapply the information-supplying requirements in the Bill. That, too, is a wide power. The Bill provides for the powers to be exercisable not under the affirmative procedure, but under the negative procedure. In other words, no action will be taken on the orders unless they are prayed against and debated.
  I regard the use of secondary legislation on a matter of such importance as being profoundly unsatisfactory. On any view of the matter, the powers that we are giving to the Secretary of State are extensive. They change the ordinary requirements of law. Although I am not arguing that the affirmative procedure is a perfect instrument—I think it is a very blunt instrument because, for example, it is not amendable—it is at least better than the negative procedure.
  198
  On a matter of such importance, I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will consider using the affirmative procedure, rather than the negative procedure.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien indicated assent.
  Mr. Hogg: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary is nodding. I take that as encouragement, and I hope that he will address the matter that I put to him.
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) in his place. My second point goes to the Disqualifications Bill, which the House debated some time ago. I address the point now because I regretted that he was not aware of the significance of what he was saying, in the context of that Bill. He argued eloquently against foreign donations, but the Disqualifications Bill, which I am pretty sure he supported, although I spoke and voted against it, enables Members of the Dail to serve in this House. A Member of the Dail who happened to be serving in this House would be bound to be supported by foreign donations. That is absolutely certain.
  If the hon. Gentleman is against foreign donations—a case that he argued extremely eloquently—he surely could not in all good conscience support the idea of Members of the Irish Dail sitting in this place. One proposition follows the other, inevitably.
  The third point is, admittedly, somewhat technical, but this is the occasion for technical debates. It relates to the partisan point that I made. In clause 63(1)(a) at line 18, the reference is to "a Northern Ireland party". I am well aware that Government amendment No. 24 uses the word "each". That is a step forward, and I do not for a moment dissent from that proposition.
  I am not accusing the Government of being partisan in this sense, but as the Bill is drafted, there is no doubt that the legislation would enable a partisan order to be made. I am glad that the word "each" is used.
  I sympathised with my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) when he queried whether the word "each" is sufficient to meet the intended purpose. I am not sure about that. I hope that further consideration will be given to the matter, although I welcome the step.
  I am sorry to press the point a little further. Line 24 refers again to "a Northern Ireland party". That is in the context of the power given to the Secretary of State to lift the requirement with regard to the provision of information.
  If it is right to substitute the word "each" for "a" in line 18, for the self-same reasons it must be right to substitute the word "each" for "a" in line 24. I know better than most people how difficult it is to read the amendment paper, and I may have missed an amendment making that substitution in line 24. However, the Under-Secretary will forgive me if I cannot find it. Clearly, I should be able to find it because, according to his logic, it ought to be there. If I am wrong, I apologise; if I am right, perhaps he will undertake to make the necessary substitution in another place.
  My penultimate point is about discrimination. To mix metaphors, if I interpreted the Under-Secretary's body language correctly, I am pushing at an open door. I made the point earlier in an intervention on the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), and to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry.

  199
  The definition of a Northern Ireland party is critical to clause 63. The provision defines a Northern Ireland party as one that has representatives in this House or in the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, that discriminates against democratic organisations that have no elected representatives in this House or the Assembly but are represented in, for example, the European Parliament or in local government. Some even have the bad fortune not to be represented in an elected body, but are none the less democratic.
  Why should clause 63 discriminate in principle between parties that have elected representatives and those that do not? I was not sure what the nods and winks across the Chamber from the Treasury Bench were telling me. Perhaps there is an amendment on the amendment paper—
  Mr. Tipping: Perhaps I can clarify the matter. There is no amendment on the amendment paper, but we intend to table an amendment that will have the scope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman desires and that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) advocated.
  Mr. Hogg: It would be churlish not to welcome that intervention. However, I am sorry that the amendment has not been tabled already because the Bill has been before the House for some time. [Interruption.] Ministers should not shake their heads; the Bill has indeed been before the House for some time.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in an intervention on the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), we cannot table the amendment now because we need to resolve issues that relate to federal parties such as the Liberal Democrats. When we have done that, we hope to table an amendment in another place.
  Mr. Hogg: The word "cannot" is inappropriate. The Under-Secretary means that he has not got his tackle in order. He has had months in which to go fishing and get his tackle in order. I am not in the least sympathetic; the amendment should have been tabled. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary has given us an undertaking to table such an amendment in another place. Am I right?
  Mr. Tipping indicated assent.
  Mr. Hogg: I note the undertaking. Of course, we reserve the right to consider it further in another place and when the Bill returns to the House.
  Dr. Godman: As someone who does a bit of fly fishing, I hope that my tackle is in order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to parties that are democratic but fail to secure seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly. One such party is the Ulster Democratic party, which is led by Gary McMichael. It won a fair amount of votes, but no seats.
  Mr. Hogg: I am not trying to distinguish between democratic parties. If parties are democratic, they should be able to benefit from clause 63, irrespective of whether they have elected representatives. To be fair to the Labour Front Bench, Ministers are now conceding that point, for which I am grateful.
  200
  My last point was also made from the Liberal Democrat Benches. We are legislating for the future. Over time, the mainstream parties of Great Britain may choose to become represented in Northern Ireland. Ministers will bear in mind that the Conservative party—unofficially, I think, but no matter for these purposes—has promoted itself in Northern Ireland from time to time.
  5.45 pm
  The hon. Member for Battersea is correct that clause 63 might enable foreign donations to go to a wing of a Great Britain party operating in Northern Ireland. In the absence of a firebreak, that money could, perfectly properly, be filtered into Great Britain. Once one has accepted as the working assumption the proposition that foreign donations are a bad thing—I am agnostic and prepared to argue the issue—one must address the question of the firebreak. On that point, I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who is no longer present, and the hon. Member for Battersea.
  I do not like to be churlish and think that I have been given at least two undertakings. I pocket them both, although I regret that they were not in the Bill, and look forward to receiving lots more.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Clause 63 enables a temporary exemption from the normal restrictions on donations and the reporting requirements established by the Bill to be made for Northern Ireland parties. The amendment would remove that provision. The issues raised by the clause were discussed at considerable length in Committee, and the Government acknowledge that it would of course be preferable if it were not necessary to create any such exemptions, but the Neill committee reviewed the question carefully and concluded that there was no alternative. The Government reluctantly agree.
  In yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said that we cannot pick and choose from the Neill committee report and sought to put himself firmly on that ground. He suggested that we were not there with him, but if he wants to make that point perhaps he ought to consider whether he should stick to it himself.
  Mr. Robathan: Of course the Government are picking and choosing all the way down the line, particularly with regard to various points about referendums. However, the amendment does not address exactly what the Neill committee said. It would give the Government much wider scope for making an order and, in respect of permissible sources, could allow to happen things other than what the Neill committee set out in recommendation 29.
  Mr. O'Brien: I understand that Lord Neill has said that he is happy with the Bill's drafting and that it achieves what he feels is fair and practical in all the circumstances, particularly in relation to these measures at least. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that.
  It remains the case that some donors in Northern Ireland could be subject to discrimination or retaliation if publicly identified. That is the nub of the problem. We know that those who donate to certain political parties—let us be specific; perhaps to the Social Democratic and Labour party—may fear assault or worse. We should be aware of that concern, which might face anyone who

  201
  considers donating to a parliamentary and constitutional party from the nationalist community in which there is some dissension.
  The choice between risking such consequences and ceasing to make donations is not one that we would wish people in Northern Ireland to have to make. The nationalist community has clear links with the Irish Republic and there is no great secret about that, although the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) seemed to suggest that perhaps there is. The SDLP may receive substantial financial support from the Irish Republic—I am not sure that it has ever denied that—and may receive donations from other reputable European sources. I do not know whether it receives money from the United States, but it would not surprise me if it does.
  Mr. William Ross: If the SDLP is receiving substantial support from the Irish Republic, why should that not be public knowledge when it would have to be public knowledge in respect of the Labour party?
  Mr. O'Brien: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the concern of those who may have donated to the SDLP about their safety might still be present in the Irish Republic. Those who might wish them ill may not be excluded by a border. That is a concern of which we must be aware.
  The hon. Member for North Dorset advanced some arguments with which I must deal. First, he argued that the clause might exacerbate the peace process. Our view is that it would not. Removal of the clause would disproportionately disadvantage nationalist parties as against other parties because nationalist parties tend to have links with the Republic, which will be precluded by the Conservative amendment. That does not sit easily with at least the spirit of the peace process, which aims to be inclusive rather than reinforcing the position of one community, perhaps to the disadvantage of political parties that seek to represent the other community.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman for the last time. I have been generous to him.
  Mr. Robathan: The Minister has been generous, but I have been generous to him in not hanging around and making another speech, which I could do.
  We are dealing with an important clause and I have been listening carefully to the Minister. This is not a party political provision. The Minister's logic is completely flawed. He has said that decent law-abiding people in the Irish Republic who may wish to contribute to a Northern Ireland nationalist party, namely the SDLP, must not be identified. However, he has said that we must allow people to donate from whatever source to nationalist parties—republican parties—in the north of Ireland. The only people feared by those whom he wishes not to be identified in the Irish Republic are members of Sinn Fein, with its inextricable links with the IRA. That logic seems to have escaped the hon. Gentleman. Sinn Fein is being helped by the clause—as I have said, it is inextricably linked with the IRA—and that is the purpose of the second part of the clause.
  Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman had been present throughout the debate, he would perhaps realise that one
  202
  of the concerns is about parties such as the SDLP, and not so much Sinn Fein, which might well be caused some difficulties if we did not at least have a provision such as the clause. I do not think that anyone on the Opposition Benches seeks to cause the SDLP effectively to be unable to function. I have had representations from the SDLP to the effect that there is a need to bear in mind the particular difficulties that it faces in finding funds in a very difficult situation within the nationalist community in Northern Ireland. We need at least to be aware of that, and that is the basis on which we put the clause before the House.
  The hon. Member for North Dorset argued that it would be wrong to turn a blind eye to the way in which Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. I believe that it would be wrong to turn a blind eye to the realities and to the differences that are self-evident in Northern Ireland. The histories of the communities and the politics of Northern Ireland are in many ways different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom because of recent and longer-term events, and to ignore that is unreasonable. It is not only Sinn Fein that is different, but the SDLP and the entire way in which Northern Ireland politics functions.
  The peace process is going on in Northern Ireland—or not, depending on Members' points of view. However, we need to be aware of the differences in Northern Ireland. On that basis, I would disagree with the hon. Gentleman's arguments.
  We should be aware that in Northern Ireland there is a party that is organised on an all-Ireland basis. If we were to insist that the normal provisions of the Bill be applied in full, we would in effect be saying that parties that organise on other than a merely northern Irish basis would need to change their entire party organisation. The SDLP has always been a constitutional party with a strong commitment to peace, but it has close links to the south. Some people would argue that such parties should change their organisation, including Sinn Fein and perhaps the SDLP, but I think that we are honouring the Good Friday agreement in principle and the peace process if we maintain the Bill's provisions as we have put them forward. We would not be doing that if we sought to erect certain barriers against nationalist parties.
  Some amendments in the group are concerned with the definition of a Northern Ireland party. The Bill defines such parties in terms of whether they are represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly, or have one or more Members of the House elected for Northern Ireland constituencies. The Neill committee commented that the definition is too narrow and unfair, both to those parties which have yet to achieve electoral success and to those which have but may not continue to do so. Against that background, we cannot support a narrowing of the definition of a Northern Ireland party. The Government intend to bring forward amendments in another place that will extend the definition so that it covers all parties that contest elections in Northern Ireland and are included in a separate register of Northern Ireland parties.
  Since we discussed these matters in Committee, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—
  Mr. Ross: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman, but I am anxious to make progress.
  Mr. Ross: The Minister is saying that it is possible to have regional legislation bearing on the registration of Northern Ireland parties. Will he withhold that benefit from parties that are regional in the sense that they contest elections only in Wales or Scotland?
  Mr. O'Brien: There is a situation in Northern Ireland of which the hon. Gentleman, perhaps more than anyone else, is well aware. By seeking to muddy the water, he does himself no good. In his earlier intervention, he did not deal with my argument that the effect of his amendments would be to narrow the scope of the definition of Northern Ireland parties so as to include only those with six or more Members, rather than one, of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or four or more rather than one Member of this place who have been elected for Northern Ireland constituencies. It seems that his amendments would not bite on Sinn Fein, and he did not explain how they would. However, they would appear to bite on a few Unionist parties, including the Northern Ireland Unionist party, the United Unionist Assembly party, the Progressive Unionist party and the United Kingdom Unionist party, which have four, three, two and one Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively.
  The hon. Gentleman seemed to assert that his amendments would bite merely on Sinn Fein, and on our reading of them it seems that they cannot. He simply said that he did not believe that that mattered or that they would bite on the smaller Unionist parties, but he offered no explanation. It seems that there is no logic in his argument.
  The Government's intention is to ensure that we create as much fairness as we can in a difficult situation. When we discussed these matters in Committee, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had an opportunity to meet the main Northern Ireland parties, and he did so. The balance of opinion among them was that exemptions from the disclosure requirements of part IV are essential. Given that view, it remains the Government's intention to exercise the order-making power in clause 63 so as to disapply the provisions of part IV in respect of northern Irish parties.
  We are minded to apply such an order initially for four years, and review it thereafter. We believe that if we are able to remove the disclosure exemptions, we would wish to do so as soon as is practicable. If the peace process were to succeed, we would hope that circumstances would present themselves to enable us to remove the exemptions in four years or even less. That depends on the circumstances that apply.
  6 pm
  Amendments Nos. 166, 170 and 171 are an attempt by the hon. Member for East Londonderry to try to put a more reasonable face on his proposals. The amendments would provide for a more restricted application of such an order—that is, for one year in the first instance, with a possibility of no more than two annual renewals. It might be that the hon. Gentleman hopes that the conditions that the Neill committee regarded as giving rise to the need for the exemptions for Northern Ireland will have eased within one year, and that he is confident that they will have disappeared within three years. Time will tell, but, for now, the Government consider that an initial
  204
  period of four years is appropriate. We are not being dogmatic: if circumstances improve, the Government hope to be able to be more helpful.
  Amendment No. 174 would require that an order made under clause 63(1A), which amendment No. 166 would insert, should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Government do not propose to accept amendment No. 166 and therefore cannot accept amendment No. 174 as it stands. However, it is implicit in the amendment that an order under clause 63(1) as it stands should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. On reflection, the Government agree with that proposition and will table an amendment to that effect in another place. I hope that that reassures the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) spoke to amendment No. 164. The Government are well aware of the concern that any exemptions for Northern Ireland parties will undermine the effectiveness of the ban on foreign funding of political parties in the rest of the United Kingdom. One possible consequence of an order made under clause 63 is to enable a party that organises on a UK-wide basis to escape the prohibition on foreign funding by channelling funding through branches in Northern Ireland. Clearly, we want to avoid that. Unfortunately, the amendment takes a rather heavy-handed approach to the problem. Its effect could be to prevent any order being made under subsection (1)(b) at all, thereby nullifying the whole provision. None the less, the issue is one of genuine concern and I hope to be able to reassure the House.
  The Government will table amendments in another place that will prevent Northern Ireland parties from acting as conduits for the transfer of foreign donations to parties, or branches of parties, operating in Great Britain. All parties entered on the Northern Ireland register will benefit from the terms of any order made under clause 63. However, the quid pro quo is that a party registered in Northern Ireland will be prevented from making a donation to a party registered in Great Britain. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) pointed out, that might have implications for the administration of parties that operate on a UK-wide basis, but it is only by establishing a fire wall between parties in Great Britain and parties in Northern Ireland that we can ensure that the ban on foreign funding is effectively enforced. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea is reassured by what I have said and will not press his amendment.
  Mr. Ross: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not doing so. I am anxious to make progress.
  Government amendment No. 24 responds to a drafting point picked up by the hon. Member for North Dorset in Committee. Clause 63(1) provides that an exemption made under that subsection may apply in relation to "a Northern Ireland party". The current wording is open to the unintended interpretation that the application of such an exemption order might be limited to only one Northern Ireland party, as opposed to the generality of Northern Ireland parties.
  I shall reflect on the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about the wording of the subsequent part of the clause.

  205
  However, Government amendment No. 24 would ensure that any order made under clause 63 will apply to all Northern Ireland parties. It is not possible to specify individual parties. The reference to "a Northern Ireland party" in clause 63(1)(b) occurs in a different context to the reference in clause 63(1)(a). In our view, any order made under clause 63(1)(b) would apply to all Northern Ireland parties. However, I shall consider the issue and write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Walter: I shall confine my remarks to the amendment standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It would strike out clause 63, which we consider unacceptable.
  I was gratified that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) alluded to the position of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland. I was more gratified by his stating the view, shared by the Conservatives, that a permissible source should be one that is investigable in the United Kingdom; a source must be within the United Kingdom, otherwise we shall not know whence the money comes.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that he did not want Northern Ireland to be different. That is exactly why we tabled the amendment to strike out the clause. The hon. Gentleman's amendments that would ring-fence Northern Ireland are not acceptable to us, nor do we believe that they would be workable, as they would still allow foreign donations to come to political parties in the United Kingdom. However, he is right to say that the Government are failing in their moral and political duty in this respect. Allowing the clause to remain part of the Bill would be an outrage to democracy.
  We share the concerns of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) about small parties. If our amendment is accepted, Northern Ireland will be treated in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom, thereby allaying those concerns.
  I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and his colleagues. He reflected on the assurances given by the Minister in Committee, and I shall briefly quote the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who said:
  I hope that one day soon the situation will be normalised and the provisions of the Bill will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 1 February 2000; c. 190.]
  We see no reason why that should not happen right now.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department spoke of a "temporary restriction". He went on to suggest that if we tried to remove it, we would be cherry-picking from the Neill report. As I said, the Northern Ireland situation has moved on; we are not cherry-picking from Neill, but dealing with a set of circumstances that has changed.
  The Under-Secretary says that the reason for the provisions is to ensure anonymity of donors to Northern Ireland political parties. If he wants them to get anonymity, why does the Bill not deal specifically with anonymity for United Kingdom citizens who would otherwise be permissible donors under clause 48? Instead, clause 63 would allow foreign donations—such as those made from the United States of America to Sinn Fein in
  206
  Northern Ireland. The clause drives a coach and horses through the Bill, which is designed to ensure financial propriety in the way in which we in this country conduct our affairs.
  We believe that the basic tenets of the Neill report are abused by clause 63. The clause allows exemptions for foreign donations. It is therefore unacceptable and we urge the House to support our amendment and so to reject the clause.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 295.

  Division No. 105]

  [6.9 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Amess, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Gale, Roger

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Garnier, Edward

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Baker, Norman

  Gibb, Nick

  Baldry, Tony

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ballard, Jackie

  Gray, James

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Green, Damian

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Greenway, John

  Bercow, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Boswell, Tim

  Hammond, Philip

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Brady, Graham

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brake, Tom

  Heald, Oliver

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Brazier, Julian

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Breed, Colin

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Horam, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burnett, John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Burstow, Paul

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Butterfill, John

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

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Key, Robert

  Cash, William

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Chope, Christopher

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Clappison, James

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Lidington, David

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Collins, Tim

  Livsey, Richard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Cotter, Brian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cran, James

  Loughton, Tim

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Evans, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Faber, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fallon, Michael

  Maples, John

  Feam, Ronnie

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  May, Mrs Theresa

  207

  Moore, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Moss, Malcolm

  Streeter, Gary

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Norman, Archie

  Swayne, Desmond

  Oaten, Mark

  Syms, Robert

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Öpik, Lembit

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Paterson, Owen

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Pickles, Eric

  Townend, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Prior, David

  Trend, Michael

  Randall, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Rendel, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wardle, Charles

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ruffley, David

  Webb, Steve

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wells, Bowen

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Sanders, Adrian

  Whittingdale, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wilshire, David

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

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spring, Richard

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ainger, Nick

  Casale, Roger

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cawsey, Ian

  Allen, Graham

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Chaytor, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Ashton, Joe

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Austin, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Banks, Tony

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Cohen, Harry

  Beard, Nigel

  Coleman, Iain

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Colman, Tony

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Connarty, Michael

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Corbett, Robin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Berry, Roger

  Cousins, Jim

  Best, Harold

  Cranston, Ross

  Betts, Clive

  Crausby, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cummings, John

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Borrow, David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Darvill, Keith

  Burden, Richard

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Burgon, Colin

  Davidson, Ian

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

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

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Cann, Jamie

  Dawson, Hilton

  208

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Doran, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dowd, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Drew, David

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Laxton, Bob

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lepper, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Leslie, Christopher

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Linton, Martin

  Flint, Caroline

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lock, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foulkes, George

  McCabe, Steve

  Fyfe, Maria

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gapes, Mike

  McDonnell, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McFall, John

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gerrard, Neil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McNulty, Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  MacShane, Denis

  Goggins, Paul

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Griffiths Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Grogan, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Gunnell, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hanson, David

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Meale, Alan

  Healey, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mlller, Andrew

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mitchell, Austin

  Heppell, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hesford, Stephen

  Moonie. Dr Lewis

  Hill, Keith

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hoey, Kate

  Morley, Elliot

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hope, Phil

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mountford, Kali

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hutton, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Illsley, Eric

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jamieson, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pendry, Tom

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Purchase, Ken

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  209

  Rapson, Syd

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rooney, Terry

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roy, Frank

  Todd, Mark

  Ruane, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Ruddock, Joan

  Truswell, Paul

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sawford, Phil

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tynan, Bill

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sheerman, Barry

  Watts, David

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  White, Brian

  Singh, Marsha

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Snape, Peter

  Wise, Audrey

  Soley, Clive

  Wood, Mike

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Woodward, Shaun

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Woolas, Phil

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Stringer, Graham

  Mr. David Clelland.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment made: No. 24, in page 40, line 18, leave out "a" and insert "each".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Schedule 6

  CONTROL OF DONATIONS TO INDIVIDUALS AND MEMBERS ASSOCIATIONS
  Amendments made: No. 97, in page 111, line 29, leave out "sub-paragraph (3)" and insert "this Schedule".
  No. 98, in page 114, line 7, leave out "falling within section 48(2)".
  No. 99, in page 114, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
  No. 100, in page 114, line 45, at end insert—
  'Payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors
  5A.—(1) The following provisions have effect for the purposes of this Schedule.
  (2) Any payment out of public funds received by a regulated donee which is a members association, for its use and benefit in connection with any of its political activities, shall be regarded as a controlled donation received by the association from a permissible donor.
  (3) Any donation received by a regulated donee shall (if it would not otherwise fall to be so regarded) be regarded as a controlled donation received by the donee from a permissible donor if and to the extent that—

  (a) the purpose of the donation is to meet qualifying costs incurred or to be incurred in connection with any visit—

  (i) by the donee in connection with any of the donee's political activities, or

  210

  (ii) in the case of a members association, by any member or officer of the association in connection with any of its political activities,

  to a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and

  (b) the amount of the donation does not exceed a reasonable amount in respect of such costs.

  (4) In sub-paragraph (3) "qualifying costs", in relation to the donee or (as the case may be) any member or officer of the donee, means costs relating to that person in respect of—

  (a) travelling between the United Kingdom and the country or territory in question; or

  (b) travelling, accommodation or subsistence while within that country or territory.

  (5) Any controlled donation received by a regulated donee from a trustee of any property (in his capacity as such) which does not constitute a donation transmitted by the trustee to the donee—

  (a) on behalf of a person who, at the time of its receipt by the donee, is a permissible donor, or

  (b) in pursuance of a bequest made by such a person as is mentioned in section 48(3),

  shall be regarded as a controlled donation received by the donee from a person who is not a permissible donor.'.
  No. 101, in page 114, line 47, at end insert "regulated donee and any".
  No. 102, in page 114, line 49, after first "a" insert "registered party and any".
  No. 103, in page 115, line 46, after "paragraph;" insert—
  `(aa) any reference to section (Payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors)(2) or to section (Payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors)(3) shall be construed as a reference to paragraph 5A(2) above or to paragraph 5A(3) above respectively;'.
  No. 104, in page 115, line 48, at end insert—
  '(6) In the case of a donation to which paragraph 5A(2) applies, sub-paragraph (2)(b) above shall have effect as if for "by the same permissible donor" there were substituted "in circumstances falling within paragraph 5A(2)".
  (7) In the case of a donation to which paragraph 5A(3) applies—

  (a) sub-paragraph (2)(b) above shall have effect as if for "by the same permissible donor" there were substituted "in circumstances falling within paragraph 5A(3) by the same donor"; and

  (b) any report prepared by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above in respect of the donation must give—

  (i) the date or dates on or between which the visit to which the donation relates took place, and

  (ii) the destination and purpose of the visit.'.

  No. 137, in page 118, line 28, leave out "or 9(3)" and insert ", 9(3) or 9(4)".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Schedule 7

  CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE: QUALIFYING EXPENSES
  Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 147, in page 120, line 30, at end add—
  '(f) any legal or other professional expenses incurred in respect of, or in connection with, any requirement in this Act.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 25 and 35.

  211
  Amendment No. 148, in schedule 12, page 146, line 18, at end add—
  `(f) any legal or other professional expenses incurred in respect of, or in connection with, any requirement in this Act.'.
  Government amendment No. 71.
  Mr. Grieve: In Committee, we were interested in the lists of expenses that would constitute campaign expenditure, or referendum expenditure, for the purpose of "notching up" to the limits that would be allowable. Certain exclusions are provided, under which expenses do not count in respect of that ceiling. They include
  expenses in respect of any property, services or facilities so far as those expenses fall to be met out of public funds … remuneration or allowances payable to any member of the permanent staff of the party … reasonable expenses incurred in respect of an individual by way of travelling expenses
  —enabling the individual to travel around his constituency, or to conduct a referendum campaign. It is noticeable that we have not discussed the expenses that will be incurred by political parties to achieve compliance with the Bill. Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 would exempt
  any legal or other professional expenses incurred in respect of, or in connection with, any requirement in this Act.
  As I am sure the Minister will accept, there is no doubt that compliance with the Bill will place financial burdens on political parties. If, in the past, parties have relied on auditors—who may not have been qualified—to do the work on a benevolent basis, it is likely that in future they will have to pay for proper auditors and accountants. Election and referendum campaigns will involve administrative burdens, and in the case of the larger parties, that burden is likely to require the recruitment of staff to ensure complete compliance with the legislation. I hope that the Minister considers it reasonable to assume that it would be wrong to ask parties to deduct the amount involved from their campaign expenditure ceiling.
  Let me issue a slight caveat in regard to my own proposals. I can envisage the possibility of the running up of legal expenses by a political party or individual defending a prosecution under the Bill, and if conviction were to follow, it might be argued that the exemption should not apply. If the Minister wishes to consider that further, I shall not stand in his way. It must be right, however, for basic, day-to-day administrative expenses that will impose an additional burden on all political parties, especially smaller parties, to be excluded, as we propose in amendments Nos. 147 and 148—which are identical, apart from the fact that amendment No. 148 applies to referendum expenses.
  I know that the Minister has tabled amendments, and I welcome them. They take on board what was said in Committee about the need to raise some of the de minimis levels of expenditure to reduce the burden on political parties, and Opposition Members will support them.
  Mr. Tipping: Government amendments Nos. 25, 35 and 71 are indeed concerned with increasing de minimis provision in the case of notional services. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, the issue was discussed in Committee; indeed, he and his hon. Friends pressed the Government to increase the provision, and I am delighted to have been able to respond. Given the consensus that appears to exist, perhaps I can let the matter rest there.
  212
  Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 would add to the list of items in schedules 7 and 12 that are not to be regarded as constituting election or referendum expenses in respect of legal or other professional services incurred in connection with compliance with the Bill. When I first looked at the amendments, I thought they were drawn very widely, but I believed that I knew what their purpose was. I must be fair to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield: he gave some examples, and rightly pointed out that the Bill would place extra burdens on all political parties. I think that he—also being fair, as ever—will acknowledge that, throughout the Bill's passage so far, the Government have provided a series of stepping stones, providing for a light touch in respect of smaller parties and more rigorous enforcement in respect of those with larger incomes and expenditure.
  The hon. Gentleman will recall that, earlier in the Bill, the Government allow the Electoral Commission to establish a scheme to distribute money to help political parties to prepare for the legislation. He will also recall that the amount is £500,000 for all political parties.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly said that there would be teething troubles, and that the Bill would produce extra burdens; but I am not convinced that the burdens on the larger parties—dare I call them the mainstream parties?—will be as great as he suggested. All the major parties already have the benefit of legal advice, and their accounts are already professionally audited.
  6.30 pm
  The hon. Gentleman pointed out that, because it is new legislation, there could be recourse to legal fees. I had thought that the amendments were aimed primarily at legal fees, but now that he has drawn attention to them, they include other professional services, too.
  I have looked in particular at the legal fees issue. I am not entirely convinced—although I will look at the matter again now that we have had the opportunity to discuss it and to hear the concerns—that his amendments are necessary. The advice that I have received at this stage is that legal fees in connection with referendums and campaign expenditure in a general election or local election could well not count against campaign fees at all. That is a moot area.
  I am certainly of the opinion that there is a strong argument that the provision of such professional fees will not be counted against campaign expenditure, but I will look at what the hon. Gentleman has said in outlining the matter. If he will give me leave, I will look at it again in the light of his comments and write to him. If necessary, and if there are the concerns that he spells out, we will make the appropriate adjustments.
  Mr. Grieve: The Minister's words are partially reassuring, but not perhaps quite as reassuring as I had hoped. I appreciate that he may not have understood the full scope of the amendment. One of the reasons for Report stage is the opportunity to discuss these matters. May I take a separate example? If I submit a tax return, I am allowed to deduct a proportion of my accountancy fees from my total income. There is an analogy here. If parties have to spend money to operate the system correctly, as the Bill demands, it will be wrong for that money to count towards their campaign expenditure.

  213
  I was thinking much more along those administrative lines than in terms of exceptional legal fees, which is precisely why I said that I could foresee a situation where, if a party got itself into difficulty and incurred legal fees because it was in trouble with the law, it might be regarded as wrong to give it such an exemption. However, that could easily be put into an amendment, if the Government applied their mind to it.
  Mr. David Heath: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's case. I am not sure that I agree with the exemption point. If a legal case arose from the Bill, it could not possibly be construed as campaign funds. It cannot genuinely fall within the scope of campaign expenditure.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. I dare say the Minister will take that on board, too. When introducing these measures, I try to look at different facets of an amendment. It seemed a point that could validly be made against us. His point is perfectly valid; I am grateful to him for having made it.
  Mr. Tipping: I reinforce the point that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has made. The advice that I have received so far—as I say, I will look at it in the context of the debate—is that such expenditure would not count against electoral expenses—but I will write to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about the matter.
  Mr. Grieve: Again, I am grateful to the Minister. I would not wish to press the amendments any further, but I hope that the matter will be looked at and addressed, so that by the time the Bill gets to the other place, there can be complete clarity as to whether such an amendment is needed. If not, I hope that the Government will provide a positive response, or that the matter may be revisited at a later stage. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 66
  NOTIONAL CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE
  Amendment made: No. 25, in page 42, line 17, leave out "£100" and insert "£200".—[Mrs. McGuire.]
Clause 67

  OFFICERS OF REGISTERED PARTY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE
  Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 43, line 27, leave out from "if' to "he" in line 31.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 27 to 31, 34, 41 to 44, 53, 65 to 69, 124, 80 and 81.
  Mr. Tipping: This is a large group of amendments. I am delighted to say that, without exception, they all
  214
  arise from the eagle eyes of the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who gave much helpful advice in Committee, and for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who, when I look back at the record, first introduced the concept of criminal offences. All the amendments respond to the points made in Committee. We have worked hard to put the Bill in good shape. At this stage, it would be best for me to sit down, to respond to any concerns and complaints and to give a further undertaking that, if we are still not quite there—I think that we are and that we have done the job—we will revisit the matter.
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister and to the Government for having taken on board the comments in Committee. Perhaps it is right that the House should be aware of what happened. By my calculation, 70 criminal offences arise out of the legislation. Although defences were offered on one or two, when the Bill went to Committee, the vast majority were absolute offences, so they could criminalise party treasurers, even association treasurers and all sorts of other people. There was no defence of reasonable excuse, or the other defences that one would normally expect in a—dare I say it?— a civilised society.
  I am mindful of the fact that part of the Government's explanation was that they tried to copy other legislation, but we pointed out that, in doing that, the draftsmen—I suspect somewhat overwhelmed by the scope and detail of the legislation—had some difficulty and failed to note that defences of reasonable excuse were offered in similar legislation and should thus be incorporated in the Bill.
  I am grateful to the Government. In looking through the Bill, I have tried to see that all the points have been covered. I shall continue to do that, as doubtless the Minister and draftsmen will, but I am obliged to the Government for having accepted that important point. It is wrong that people should be convicted of criminal offences when they have acted in what any layman would consider a completely innocent manner.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 27, in page 43, line 32, leave out "that subsection" and insert "subsection (3)".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 68
  RESTRICTION ON INCURRING CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE
  Amendment made: No. 28, in page 44, line 10, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mrs. McGuire.]
Clause 69

  RESTRICTION ON PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE
  Amendments made: No. 29, in page 44, line 29, after "if', insert "without reasonable excuse".
  No. 30, in page 44, line 31, leave out ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 70

  RESTRICTION ON MAKING CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE
  Amendments made: No. 31, in page 45, line 1, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".
  No. 32, in page 45, line 34, leave out first "the" and insert "any".
  No. 33, in page 45, line 35, at end insert—
  `(za) in which is situated the office of the treasurer, deputy treasurer or (as the case may be) other authorised person to whom the claim is sent pursuant to subsection (1) or;'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 75
  SUBMISSION OF RETURNS TO THE COMMISSION
  Amendment made: No. 34, in page 48, line 38, after "if," insert ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mrs. McGuire.]
Clause 79
  NOTIONAL CONTROLLED EXPENDITURE
  Amendment made: No. 35, in page 51, line 5, leave out "£100" and insert "£200".—[Mrs. McGuire.]
Clause 81

  THIRD PARTIES RECOGNISED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PART
  Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 52, line 18, leave out from "which" to "complies" in line 24.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 135 and 37 to 40.
  Mr. Tipping: Amendments Nos. 36 to 40 relate to the notification procedure in respect of third parties at elections. By making a notification to the Electoral Commission, a third party is able to incur controlled expenditure in excess of the limits set out in clause 87(5)—£10,000 in England and £5,000 in other parts of the UK—up to the limits set out in schedule 9.
  There was some discussion in Standing Committee of the statement to be made by a third party under clause 81(1). In response to questions from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), I said that the Government would table an amendment to clarify subsection (1)(b). On further reflection, we now believe that it would be preferable simply to omit paragraphs (a) and (b). That is the effect of Government amendment No. 36.
  The purpose of clause 81 is to bring those third parties that intend to incur significant controlled expenditure within the Electoral Commission's regulatory jurisdiction. We want to make that as easy as possible, not least to prevent a third party from inadvertently committing an offence by exceeding the expenditure limits in clause 87(5).
  There may be circumstances in which a third party will need to make a notification to the Electoral Commission under clause 81(1), to avoid committing an offence under
  216
  clause 87, but in which they could not honestly make a statement that they intend to incur expenditure in excess of the relevant limit in the next 12 months. Removing the need to make a statement in the terms set out in clause 81(1)(a) and (b) will ensure that a third party is not forced into a catch-22 situation.
  Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are consequential on No. 36.
  The purpose of amendments Nos. 37 and 38 is to ensure that a notification by a third party does not lapse during a regulated period for the purposes of the expenditure limits provided in schedule 9. The need for the amendments is perhaps best illustrated by the following example. A recognised third party may incur controlled expenditure up to a limit of £11,259, in Wales, in the four months before a European parliamentary election. As the Bill stands, were a third party's notification to lapse half way through that four-month campaign, it could spend £11,000 as a recognised third party in the first half of the campaign, and then up to another £5,000 in the second half of the campaign in its capacity as an unrecognised third party. That would clearly be contrary to the expenditure controls provided in part VI.
  To guard against that possibility, new subsection (3A), inserted by amendment No. 38, provides that, when a notification would otherwise lapse during the currency of a regulated period, it shall be deemed to continue in force until the end of that period.
  The amendments in this group deal with small but important parts of the Bill, and they provide extra clarification.
  Mr. Walter: I do not want to delay the House for long, but an issue arises when one reads clause 81 and the amendments in this group. I am still somewhat disturbed about that issue, as I was in Committee when we were considering it. Although I acknowledge the points that the Minister has made, I am still concerned that the amendments in this group fail to address some of the issues that were raised in Committee.
  6.45 pm
  In clause 81, there is a fascinating turn of phrase about an "unincorporated association", and the need to state
  the name of the association,
  if it is a recognised third party, and
  the address of an office of the association in the United Kingdom—
  as if the association might have offices outside the United Kingdom.
  Although we have gone to great lengths in the rest of the Bill to ensure that we prevent foreign influence over our electoral process, the Bill still provides that one could be a recognised third party without necessarily being a United Kingdom citizen or an association in the United Kingdom. In fact, one could be a foreign body.
  When clause 81 was drafted, I was told that it could not be amended because it had to comply with the European convention on human rights. We have to be clear, therefore, that the clause will allow a group of foreign individuals to come to the United Kingdom, perhaps to take a suite of rooms at the Savoy hotel, and to register with the Electoral Commission. Subsequently, those individuals may each spend £500,000 across the United

  217
  Kingdom—on newspaper advertisements, posters and leaflets through the door—all in support of a particular political cause, and all paid for by foreigners.
  The clause, as amended by the Government today, is still a glaring leak in the Bill's provisions seeking to ban foreign donations and foreign influence on our political process. The leak is still there, and the Government have done nothing to remove it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 135, in page 52, line 25, at end insert—
  '(1A) A third party may only give a notification under subsection (1) if—

  (a) an individual,

  (b) a company falling within section 48(2)(b), or

  (c) an unincorporated association of such a description as is mentioned in section 48(2)(f).'.

  No. 37, in page 53, line 4, after "shall" insert—
  `, subject to subsection (3A),'.
  No. 38, in page 53, line 7, at end insert—
  `(3A) Where—

  (a) the original notification would apart from this subsection lapse under subsection (3)(b) at the end of any such period of three months as is mentioned in that provision, but

  (b) the end of that period falls within any regulated period at the end of which a return will fall to be prepared under section 89 in respect of controlled expenditure incurred by or on behalf of the third party during the regulated period,

  the original notification shall be treated, for all purposes connected with controlled expenditure so incurred during the regulated period, as lapsing at the end of that period instead.'.
  No. 39, in page 53, line 13, leave out from "statement" to "subsection" in line 16 and insert "conforming with".
  No. 40, in page 53, line 26, leave out—
  `subsection (1)(a) or (b) or (as the case may be)'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 83
  RESTRICTION ON INCURRING CONTROLLED EXPENDITURE
  Amendment made: No. 41, in page 54, line 9, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Clause 84

  RESTRICTION ON PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF CONTROLLED EXPENDITURE
  Amendments made: No. 42, in page 54, line 27, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".
  No. 43, in page 54, line 29, leave out ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 85
  RESTRICTION ON MAKING CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF CONTROLLED EXPENDITURE
  Amendment made: No. 44, in page 54, line 40, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Clause 87

  LIMITS ON CONTROLLED EXPENDITURE BY THIRD PARTIES
  Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 56, line 2, leave out—
  `, in connection with relevant elections falling within section 72(1),'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 45A to 48.
  Amendment No. 138, in schedule 9, page 132, leave out lines 14 to 21 and insert—
  `the period between the date on which Parliament is dissolved and the date of the poll for the election.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 49 to 52, 54 and 55.
  Mr. Tipping: Amendments Nos. 45 to 55 essentially make technical or drafting changes to chapter II of part VI. Amendment No. 45 removes an inconsistency between clause 87(1) and the general approach to controlling election expenditure taken in both parts V and VI—which proceed on the basis that it would be artificial and difficult in practice to attribute campaign expenditure between different elections occurring in close proximity to each other.
  Last year's elections in Scotland are a case in point. Within a five-week period, there were local elections and elections to the Scottish and European Parliaments. Advertising by the political parties would have been devoted to achieving success at all three elections. Therefore, the approach taken in the Bill is to link expenditure controls not to specific elections, but to regulated periods ending with the date of an election.
  As a consequence of that approach, a recognised third party will have to account for all controlled expenditure incurred during a regulated period, including any expenditure linked to local government elections. As drafted, clause 87(1) gives the contrary impression. The provision refers back to clause 72(1), which contains a list of elections that does not include local government elections. Amendment No. 54, therefore, tidies up the drafting in clause 87(1), so that the general approach that I have described is clearly reflected in that provision.
  Mr. Grieve: The Minister gave the example of elections in close proximity. However, will he confirm that the impact of the approach is that third parties will be subject to the regulations at all times? Unless third parties happen to fall into one of the "hole" periods in which there are no such elections, with all those elections applying to them at no time could they assume that the rules would not bite upon them.
  Mr. Tipping: That would depend entirely on the third parties' purposes and aims—third parties come and go. Some third parties will exist in perpetuity, and amendment No. 54 will affect them as I have just described, whereas I suspect that other third parties will be solely campaigning organisations that are established for a specific purpose or election, but subsequently dissolve.
  Amendment No. 47 ensures that the expenditure limits for recognised third parties cannot be circumvented by incurring controlled expenditure during a regulated period

  219
  both as a third party and as a recognised third party. As a result of the amendment, any expenditure incurred by a third party before it became a recognised third party would count towards the relevant expenditure limit stated in schedule 9.
  Amendment No. 49 flows naturally from amendment No. 47. The general restrictions relating to controlled expenditure in clauses 83 to 86 apply only to recognised third parties. It follows that a recognised third party could not comply with subsections (2) to (4) of clause 89 in respect of any controlled expenditure incurred before they became a recognised third party. The amendment disapplies those subsections in respect of any expenditure incurred during a regulated period as a third party.
  Amendment No. 50 ensures that the requirement to submit a return under clause 89 in respect of controlled expenditure incurred during a regulated period continues to apply in circumstances in which a third party ceases to be a recognised third party at any time on or after the end of the regulated period. The other Government amendments in the group make minor or drafting changes.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has tabled amendment No. 138, returning to an issue that he raised on Second Reading. His concern appears to be thau pressure groups and other third parties may unwittingly be caught out by the provisions of part VI, as they cannot be expected to know when the 365-day relevant period before a general election will begin. The aim of the amendment is to introduce greater certainty by confining the period during which expenditure controls will apply to the three or four weeks following the dissolution of Parliament.
  Since Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has corresponded with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead on the issue. In a letter of 8 February, my hon. Friend explained why he believed my right hon. Friend's concerns to be unfounded. For the convenience of the House, I shall try to set out briefly the positions of third parties that will follow the commencement of part VI.
  Pressure groups, trade unions or other third parties that incur expenditure designed to enhance or prejudice the electoral prospects of a political party or its candidates at an election could be caught by one of two offences. First, a non-registered third party commits an offence under clause 87(3) if controlled expenditure is incurred in a regulated period in excess of one of the de minimis limits in clause 87(5), which are £10,000 in England and £5,000 in any other part of the UK. Many third parties that spend relatively small amounts will not need to become recognised, so there will be no restrictions on them. I suspect that a variety of small third party campaigns will emerge around single issues that affect neighbourhoods, groups of people or interest groups. They will want to pursue those matters vigorously. Provided that they stay below the de minimis provisions, their actions will be largely unaffected.
  However, if such a group wants to spend more than those limits, they will need to become a recognised third party. To do so, they will need to submit notification to the Electoral Commission, in accordance with the provisions of clause 81. It is a simple procedure that involves no more than depositing with the commission the name and address of the organisation and the address of a person who will be responsible for complying with the
  220
  financial controls set out in part VI. Many Members expressed concern about that in Committee. They were keen to ensure that the rigorous and onerous provisions of the Bill did not impact too heavily and discourage small third parties. We all want an explosion of political involvement and activity.
  Any third party that expects to incur controlled expenditure could avoid the offence in clause 87(3) by making the required notification and renewing it annually. That would make it a recognised third party, able to benefit from the higher limits on controlled expenditure set out in schedule 9.
  A recognised third party could avoid the second offence of exceeding the limits on controlled expenditure imposed in schedule 9 by operating to the expenditure limit for any 365-day period. I think that that is my right hon. Friend's principal concern. A recognised third party that intends to incur significant controlled expenditure is likely to incur a sizeable proportion of it only once an election has been called and can therefore limit its expenditure accordingly. We all know from our campaigning experience that the bulk of any campaign expenditure is best spent on the final lap.
  Many third parties are sophisticated political organisations that can make as educated a guess as my right hon. Friend or I about when a general election is likely to be held. We all suspect that the next general election is only 12 to 18 months away. I am not giving away any great secrets. I have no insider knowledge; it is a matter of judgment. I suspect that third parties can make the same judgments. If I can make such a guess, so can the chief executives of third parties.
  Mr. Eric Forth: The Minister has just said something more significant than he may want to admit. By my calculation, the Government have not yet been in power for three years. If I recall correctly, the maximum statutory term of office is five years. For the Minister to reveal to a startled House that the next general election will be between 12 and 18 months away appears to limit the flexibility available to the Prime Minister in choosing the date of the election, which, by my calculation, could be held at any time within the next 25 months or so. Will the Minister clarify that?
  Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman has a reputation as a vigorous street fighter. I said that we could make educated guesses; I have no insider knowledge. I refer him to the record if he wants to look at it. My educated guess is that the next election will be within the next 12 to 18 months. He will make his own educated guess as a seasoned street fighter who is determined to win elections. He will decide when and how to apply his efforts and financial resources. I suspect that he may not wait until 24 months from now, because he may then be too late.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead takes a great deal of interest in voluntary organisations, pressure groups and people who want to influence the political system. Third parties will be helped in a number of ways. They can ensure that they stay below the de minimis provisions. They can also use their political knowledge and guile to work out when a general election might come and contain their expenditure during the 365 days before that.

  221
  I hope that I have given my right hon. Friend some reassurance and put the issues on the record for the benefit of the many third parties which the Government are keen to involve in the political system. We need to do more to bring more freshness and vigour to the process.
  7 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I wish to comment on the reasons for the amendments and the arguments deployed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
  When I first looked at the Bill, I thought that the Government had tabled the schedule to see whether the House had the staying power to read the Bill to that point. It is difficult to understand why this part of the Bill has been drafted in this way. One reason may be that the Government are anxious that smaller groups should actively participate in any campaign—certainly big campaigns, such as a referendum on the euro—and that they should know their position and keep easily within the law. The proposal does not really deal with the big players who are interested in this debate and in the outcome of that referendum.
  I wonder whether the Government are trying to get away with this part of the Bill because, above all else, they fear that the euro will spill over into the election campaign in a way that will be detrimental to the party colours that I have stood for proudly since 1966, when I fought Beaconsfield—as the Prime Minister did in his journey to the House of Commons—and in Birkenhead since 1979. I would not put much money on the Opposition winning the election on policy, but clearly if the euro becomes part of the campaign, the outcome is more open to doubt than it would otherwise be.
  I tabled amendment No. 138 because I was anxious for the Government to act fairly and not find themselves before the European Court. I know that the Government want to be at the heart of Europe, but that has a different meaning if we are in the dock of the European Court to answer a case which we find difficult to answer.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has skills which lead him to be much admired in this House. He carries a lot of good will because of the way in which he conducts himself and the way in which he engages properly in argument. He does not get involved in slanging or in spin. However, even he finds it difficult to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. This part of the Bill will land the Government in difficulties.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) immediately spotted the difficulty that the Government are in, and the difficulty that all the big players will be in when they try to read the crystal ball as to whether the election timetable of 365 days has started. None of us knows when the clock will start until the Prime Minister announces the date of the election and tables the necessary resolutions to dissolve Parliament. It seems only proper that the clock should start ticking at that stage in terms of third-party expenditure. Otherwise, the Government will be charged with attempting deliberately to introduce legislation that will act retrospectively—not as this House has done previously, by overturning the established rights of people who thought that they were protected, but by saying that as
  222
  nobody bar the Prime Minister knows the date of the next election, people will unwittingly find themselves breaking a law that they would not otherwise wish to break.
  I appeal to Ministers because the Government will not get away with this. Retrospective legislation is a sign of the Government running scared of the euro tunnelling into the next election campaign. The Government can stop that in all sorts of ways, but one way in which they cannot stop it is to pass this schedule of this Bill in this form. People will not know whether they are breaking the law or not. They will be able to plead before the courts—and before the European Court, if necessary—that they acted in good faith, and that their expenditure was valid.
  We all know that this part of the Bill will not continue to be part of the Bill when another place has had a chance to look at it. The debate will come back to us and the Government will be faced with trying to impose their will on the House, which will result in law-abiding citizens behaving unlawfully. It is unwise for Governments to push reform to the stage that people knowingly break the law; it is even worse if people unknowingly break the law and are retrospectively held to account for their actions.
  No one in the country knows the date of the general election, and I plead with Ministers to think again on this matter. If they do not, the other place will think again for them. The matter will come back to this Chamber for a vote on a crazy proposal which does not command respect in this House and could not be carried on a free vote. It will not be carried in another place, so the Government put themselves at a disadvantage with voters by behaving in this fashion.
  Mr. Grieve: The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a compelling speech. Listening to the Parliamentary Secretary, my amazement grew by the minute. He confidently told us about being able to predict general elections and the normal span of Parliaments. Casting my mind back, I remember that the Government of Mr. Callaghan came to an end which was not dictated by his own decision as to when to go to the country, and that Government extended for nearly five years. Closer to home, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) would not have wished his Government to go the full five years, but circumstances compelled him into that. That is another example of the impossibility of making such a prognosis.
  The amendments, albeit technical, are revealing in terms of the difficulties that the Government are having in plugging the loopholes and the differences between the different schedules. Also—the Minister half-answered this point—the amendments establish an even tighter regime by introducing new categories of election to be covered, which makes it even more difficult to make any sort of guess by an organisation as to when they may fall foul of the legislation.
  The essential feature of the provision is that it has nothing to do with the Neill committee, which recommended spending limits for third parties in relation to elections to prevent political parties evading the limits—as happens in the United States of America—by having parallel campaigning organisations. The Neill committee's report talks of the prevention of large-scale propaganda that was clearly intended either to promote the election of one party or to discourage the election of another. In the immediate period of an election, that is

  223
  sensible and enjoys the support of the Opposition, and—from what he said—the support of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead.
  However, the Neill committee contained nothing about a specified time for which spending limits would apply. Indeed, the report stated:
  There would be considerable practical difficulties in imposing annual spending limits.
  Indeed there would. One could not imagine a greater fetter on the freedom of people or organisations to spend their money as they wished or to communicate with others. That right is enshrined in the European convention on human rights, which we have just taken into our law. I hope that the Minister will give me credit for supporting that, despite the difficulties when it came before the House.
  The Government have gone well beyond what Neill recommended. With the 365-day principle, they have introduced a level of control that would apply not only to political parties but to groups of
  candidates who hold … particular opinions.
  The provision would affect a campaign that was run six months before an election advising people to vote Labour or Conservative, and it would also affect a campaign being run to persuade people to vote, for example, for candidates who were pro-life, or pro-abortion. That would fall foul of the 365-day period. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out, that is the entire year before the election.
  We have co-operated a lot on this Bill, but this provision is either barmy or malevolent. I am still prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt that it has been inserted barmily, in a belief that the time limit needs to extend beyond the immediate election period, and then taken too far.
  The schedule would introduce spending limits at all times on campaigning organisations. In those circumstances, what would be the practical consequences? Well, unless campaigning organisations will lie down, terrorised, and give up campaigning, they will go ahead and campaign. Many of them will hit an election having grossly exceeded the limits prescribed. However, the Government cannot stop the organisations spending in that time, so—as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out—when the election arrives, the organisations will have committed a criminal offence. I am not sure what a jury, still less the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords or the European Court of Human Rights, will make of that offence. The Government will end up with egg on their face, and so will the House, for having passed legislation that is manifestly absurd and unfair.
  The Government should consider the matter sensibly. They should impose restrictions for the period of a general election, but they should simply live with the fact that they cannot prevent people, outside local or general election periods, from promoting a political viewpoint that may include support for a political party or for groups of MPs who may hold particular views.
  The Bill was meant to tackle party spending. It was meant to prevent corruption. It was not, as I am sure the Minister would agree, supposed to impose draconian restrictions on campaigning organisations. Amendment No. 138 would not remove controls on third-party spending altogether, but it would go a long way towards
  224
  remedying what is wrong with the Bill. It is greatly to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman that he has brought the matter before the House on Report.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman said that the amendment goes only part of the way. What sort of amendment would he have preferred? Only when we have the dissolution order before Parliament do we know the date of the general election.
  Mr. Grieve: I expressed myself badly. The Opposition felt disquiet initially when we considered whether restrictions on third-party expenditure were justifiable. In a spirit of supportiveness, and an understanding of what the Bill is trying to achieve and what Lord Neill recommended, we have put that disquiet to one side. That is one of the reasons why the Bill has progressed with enormous cross-party co-operation. We have made it clear several times that we are prepared to implement Lord Neill's recommendations, even when we can see that there will be practical difficulties. I simply wished to make the point that the right hon. Gentleman's amendment will not get rid of control over third parties, but he has undoubtedly identified the best way of bringing it back within the bounds of reasonableness.
  I hope that the Government will give amendment No. 138 some serious thought, coming as it does from a distinguished Labour Back Bencher. We do not wish to depart from the spirit of sensible inquiry that has dominated proceedings on the Bill, and that is greatly to the credit of the Minister. However, the problem will not go away. I would be staggered if the other place failed to point out that the provision fails to comply with basic human rights. If it comes back to this House and has not been properly dealt with, or the Government have not agreed to think again, I foresee that it will not pass without argument. I would prefer to see the consensus that we have achieved hitherto being maintained and I hope that the Government will think again.
  I considered whether it was possible to define a period other than the election period itself. However, as I am sure the Minister will agree, another period cannot work. The only sensible limit is the election period.
  Mr. Tipping: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) for their comments. We have listened to all the comments made during the Bill's progress. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that, if the Bill could be improved, it would be improved and, if consensus could be found, we would try to find a way forward. That has so far happened.
  At times during the speech by the hon. Gentleman, I wondered whether he had moved away from a commitment to spending controls on third parties but, as he developed his theme, he made it clear that he was not against the principle. However, he thought that there would be practical difficulties. I remind him that a central tenet of the Bill is to put financial controls on political parties, which Neill advocated.
  Neill also advocated that third parties should be allowed to spend 5 per cent., say, of what political parties spend. That can be judged only against a timetable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead advocates a much shorter timetable, but that is a matter of judgment.

  225
  We must remember that organisations such as pro-life or environmental groups undertake normal and legitimate campaigning activities. Society benefits from such activities and I hope that we see more of them. They would contravene the Bill only when it became clear that they were trying to influence the outcome of an election. We are not trying to stymie campaign groups—heaven forbid. We want them to do a lot more, and there is a lot of energy to be harnessed. However, when it comes to influencing election outcomes, spending controls should apply to such groups.
  I think that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield agrees with that, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead does. The important question is how such controls are set against the timetable.
  Mr. Grieve: The Minister seems to miss the point. I accept that many organisations will campaign in so general a way that their activities could not be considered relevant to an election. However, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, one can envisage campaigns on a subject such as the euro that might suggest that belief in the euro was incompatible with belonging to the Conservative party or voting Conservative, and that non-belief in the euro was incompatible with belonging to, or voting, Labour. Such campaigns must fall foul of the Bill if an election were to be called unexpectedly after expenditure had been incurred.
  Mr. Tipping: I did not miss the point. I was trying to explain it, and the fact that the hon. Gentleman grasped what I was saying so quickly shows that I was going in the right direction.
  A range of campaign groups' activities will not be covered by the Bill, but it is right to say that those activities that attempt to influence an election will be restricted by the proposals. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is keen to ensure that the regulations are not too onerous and that they do not put people off political campaigns.
  I am grateful for the generous, but I think unwarranted, comments from my right hon. Friend, and I feared that the word "but" was on its way. However, I emphasise that I do not want the regulations to be onerous or off-putting. The Bill contains a series of measures that affect larger organisations more than smaller ones. It is framework legislation that covers all sorts of elections—to the European Parliament, for example, or for seats in Scotland and Wales. It is not confined to referendums, nor is it designed around an election in connection with the euro. It contains a series of steps to regulate third-party campaign spending.
  Those of us who are involved in political activity, in the mainstream or around the fringes, can make educated guesses about when general elections will be held. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead made the point that the Prime Minister of the day has an advantage.
  Mr. Grieve: That is a major concession.
  Mr. Tipping: It is not a major concession. It is a matter of fact. I can see the hon. Member for South Staffordshire
  226
  (Sir P. Cormack) laughing, but tables turn and electoral cycles change. What is one party's interest now may not be so in the future.
  We believe that the Bill can be improved, and it has been improved already. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said about attitudes in the House of Lords. We will look at tonight's debate and take account of the comments made down the road. However, we must have a system that recognises the principle of restricting third-party spending. We must also try to ensure that it is not too onerous—an objective that I am sure unites the House.
  The 365-day provision in the Bill is workable, and the Government are on the right track. We have listened to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said, as we will listen to what is said in another place. I understand that my right hon. Friend is warning me, but I hope that he will accept what I have said and withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I also have a Beaconsfield connection, like the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), although one of us was a more successful candidate than the others.
  I have a specific question for the Minister. I understand that the regulation to which he referred does not apply to publishers of newspapers. Will he say what would happen if a major campaign organisation—with a platform in favour of the euro, for example, or against abortion—decided to publish a newspaper during the regulated period? Would that expenditure be controlled by the Bill?
  Mr. Tipping: I am interested in the history of success and failure in Beaconsfield. Clearly, a lot of unsuccessful campaigning has gone on there. If the newspaper described by the hon. Gentleman were published by a third-party organisation, it would be counted as campaign expenditure, in the true sense of the phrase.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister really mean what he just said? If Mr. Paul Sykes decided to buy a newspaper, which he filled with news about matters other than just the euro, would that be considered to be an election expense under the Bill?
  Mr. Tipping: If Mr. Paul Sykes or anyone else purchased a regular newspaper, in which he ran articles and features designed to influence the process and outcome of an election, that would clearly be campaign expenditure. However, if he bought The Daily Telegraph, for example, and that newspaper carried on promoting a variety of causes with a focus that went beyond the election—even if most of those promotions were against the Labour party—that would not be counted as an election expense. A balance has to be struck, and at some point a judgment has to be made.
  I can tell the hon. Member for South Staffordshire that it is hard to speak about hypothetical examples. These matters deserve careful judgment, but I repeat: material designed to influence elections will be considered to be campaign material, whereas traditional newspapers will not.
  7.30 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: There is a saying, "If you're in a hole, stop digging." The hon. Gentleman seems to be giving a great many hostages to fortune. Does he really mean to move his Government towards press censorship? The hon. Gentleman may shake his head. He is an immensely amiable character, and we all love him dearly, but he has said some extraordinary things, and this must be sorted out.
  Mr. Tipping: Let me be absolutely clear about this. If Mr. Paul Sykes buys The Daily Telegraph or any other newspaper and campaigns on the euro or whatever, that is clearly not an election expense. If the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has in mind a group producing a regular newspaper, locally focused, over a regular period of time, which is designed entirely and primarily to influence the election, clearly it is an election expense. I read the Liberal Democrats' Focus, although I do not rate it very highly. It is a regular newspaper that campaigns and tries to influence the election. It is clearly an election expense and if the hon. Gentleman has not been declaring it, I will have to take a close look round North Cornwall.
  Now that I have cleared up this issue, let me say, for the third time, that I have heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has said. He has heard the Government's position, and we will of course follow the debate.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Tipping: No.
  Mr. Field: My comments about my hon. Friend were made without any reservation, without any ifs or buts. My views are, I think, widely shared in all parts of the House, and we are grateful that my hon. Friend treats us in a serious manner in all our debates. I wish that others would follow that role model.
  The point of tabling the amendment was in the hope that the Government would accept it. My hon. Friend has, to put it politely, been drowning as he has tried to reply to it. As he is not accepting it, this part of the Bill—this piece of nonsense—staggers on stilts to the other place. I look forward to seeing what the other place will do with it. I am sure that we will then return to the debate in this place. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. It just means that he does not have to move it when we come to that part of the amendment paper.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 45A, in page 56, line 21, leave out 'relevant'.
  No. 46, in page 56, line 38, leave out—
  `section and sections 89 and 90'
  and insert "Chapter".
  No. 47, in page 56, line 40, after "9;", insert—
  `(aa) any reference to controlled expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a recognised third party during a regulated period includes any controlled expenditure so incurred during that period at any time before the third party became a recognised third party;'.
  No. 48, in page 56, leave out line 43 and insert—
  'is incurred in that part; and
  (c) any reference to controlled expenditure being incurred in a part of the United Kingdom shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 2 of that Schedule.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Schedule 10

  CONTROL OF DONATIONS TO RECOGNISED THIRD PARTIES
  Amendments made: No. 105, in page 140, line 5, leave out—
  ', in his capacity as such, shall be regarded as a'
  and insert—
  'of any property (in his capacity as such) which does not constitute a donation transmitted by the trustee to the recognised third party—

  (a) on behalf of a person who, at the time of its receipt by the recognised third party, is a permissible donor falling within section 48(2), or

  (b) in pursuance of a bequest made by such a person as is mentioned in section 48(3),

  shall be regarded as a relevant'.
  No. 106, in page 140, line 6, leave out—
  'a permissible donor falling with section 48(2)'
  and insert "such a permissible donor".
  No. 107, in page 140, line 37, at end insert—
  `recognised third party and any'.
  No. 108, in page 140, line 38, at end insert "registered party and any".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 89

  RETURNS AS TO CONTROLLED EXPENDITURE
  Amendments made: No. 49, in page 57, line 42, at end insert—
  `(4A) Subsections (2) to (4) do not apply to any controlled expenditure incurred at any time during the regulated period before the third party became a recognised third party, but the return must be accompanied by a declaration made by the responsible person of the total amount of such expenditure incurred at any such time.'.
  No. 50, in page 57, line 44, at end insert—
  '(5A) Where subsection (1)(a) applies in relation to a recognised third party and any regulated period—

  (a) the requirements as to the preparation of a return under this section in respect of controlled expenditure falling within subsection (1)(a) shall have effect in relation to the third party despite the third party ceasing to be a recognised third party at or after the end of the regulated period by virtue of the lapse of the third party's notification under section 81(1); and

  (b) for the purposes of, or in connection with, the discharge of obligations of the responsible person under this section and sections 91 and 92 in relation to any such return, references to the responsible person shall be read as references to the person who was the responsible person in relation to the third party immediately before that notification lapsed.'.

  No. 51, in page 58, line 2, leave out—
  `; and section 87(6) applies for the purposes of this section'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 90
  AUDITOR'S REPORT ON RETURN
  Amendment made: No. 52, in page 58, leave out line 15.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Clause 91
  SUBMISSION OF RETURNS TO THE COMMISSION
  Amendment made: No. 53, in page 58, line 34, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Clause 92

  DECLARATION BY RESPONSIBLE PERSON AS TO RETURN UNDER SECTION 89
  Amendments made: No. 54, in page 58, line 42, after "party", insert "during a regulated period".
  No. 55, in page 59, line 8, leave out "relevant campaign" and insert "regulated".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 93

  PUBLIC INSPECTION OF RETURNS UNDER SECTION 89
  Amendment made: No. 56, in page 59, line 31, at end insert—
  `(1 A) If the return contains a statement of relevant donations in accordance with section 89(2)(d), the Commission shall secure that the copy of the statement made available for public inspection does not include, in the case of any donation by an individual, the donor's address.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 97

  DATE OF POLL
  Amendment made: No. 57, in page 61, line 33, after "referendum", insert—
  'to which this Part applies'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 98

  PERMITTED PARTICIPANTS
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 62, leave out lines 1 to 7 and insert—
  '(b) any of the following by whom a notification has been given under section 99 in relation to the referendum, namely—

  (i) any individual,

  (ii) any company falling within section 48(2)(b), and

  (iii) any unincorporated association of such a description as is mentioned in section 48(2)(f).'.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 59 to 63.
  Mr. O'Brien: Amendment No. 58 responds to concerns that were raised in Committee about the existing definition of a permitted participant. It was noted that the current definition in clause 98 did not appear to prevent foreign companies and associations from participating in a referendum campaign. It was argued that that seemed to be at odds with the proposed ban on foreign donations.
  230
  Concerns were also voiced about the broad nature of the regulation-making power in clause 98(1). The intended purpose of the power had been to enable the Secretary of State to restrict the ability of foreign companies and unincorporated associations to campaign in referendums to which part VII applies. We accept, however, that as drafted, the regulation-making power is very widely drawn, and it would be preferable to set out in the Bill the restrictions that we have in mind.
  The effect of the amendment is that a permitted participant in a referendum campaign must be either an individual, a European Union-incorporated company that is carrying on business in the United Kingdom, or an unincorporated association that carries on its business or activities wholly or mainly in the United Kingdom and has its main office here. Such unincorporated associations may include trade unions.
  The amended definition does not prevent an individual who is not a United Kingdom-registered voter from being a permitted participant. It is the Government's view that to restrict the ability of individuals, whether or not they are entitled to vote, to express and promote their own opinions, as opposed to financially supporting a campaign would be an undue restriction on their freedom of speech.
  The purpose of amendments Nos. 59 to 63 is to ensure that the register of permitted participants, which is maintained by the Electoral Commission for the duration of a referendum campaign, is kept up to date. Under clause 96, a referendum period can last for up to six months. It is quite conceivable that in that time a permitted participant may move offices or appoint a new "responsible person". Clearly, where that happens, there should be a duty on the permitted participant to notify the Electoral Commission of any relevant changes. Amendment No. 59 is directed to that end. On receipt of a notification of a change to a permitted participant's registration details, amendment No. 62 requires the Electoral Commission merely to update the register of permitted participants. The other three amendments make consequential drafting changes to clause 100.
  Again, I hope that this is an indication that throughout the Committee stage of the Bill, we have listened carefully to the arguments and are prepared to move when we are convinced that they have relevance.
  Mr. Walter: I am grateful to the Government for responding to some of the points that we made in Committee on this issue, and for tightening up the provisions that relate to companies and unincorporated associations. Of course, as the Minister pointed out, it is still possible for a company registered in this country but incorporated elsewhere in the European Union to be a permitted participant in a referendum campaign.
  The amendments do nothing to remove the provision for a permitted participant to be a foreign national, to visit this country—as I mentioned when we were discussing third parties—and to spend £500,000 on furthering his political views in a referendum campaign. If a group of individuals did that, they could have a significant impact on the referendum campaign. We are still very unhappy with the way in which the clause is drafted, as we are with the way in which the clause on third parties is drafted.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 99

  DECLARATIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 98
  Amendment made: No. 59, in page 63, line 5, at end insert—
  '(4A) If at any time before the end of the compliance period any of the statements which, in accordance with any provision of subsection (4), are contained in a notification under this section (as it has effect for the time being) ceases to be accurate, the permitted participant by whom the notification was given shall give the Commission a notification ("a notification of alteration") indicating that that statement is replaced by some other statement—

  (a) contained in the notification of alteration, and

  (b) conforming with that provision of subsection (4).

  (4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A) "the compliance period" is the period during which any provisions of Chapter II remain to be complied with on the part of the permitted participant.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 100

  REGISTER OF DECLARATIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 98
  Amendments made: No. 60, in page 63, line 16, leave out subsection (3).
  No. 61, in page 63, line 19, after "cause", insert—
  (a)".
  No. 62, in page 63, line 20, after "register", insert ", or
  (b) in the case of a notification under section 99(4A), any change required as a consequence of the notification to be made in the register,'.
  No. 63, in page 63, line 21, at end insert—
  '(5) The information to be entered in the register in respect of a permitted participant who is an individual shall, however, not include his home address.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Schedule 11
  ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE TO DESIGNATED ORGANISATIONS
  Amendment made: No. 109, in page 144, line 19, leave out from "organisations," to end of line 21.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Clause 104

  REFERENDUM EXPENSES
  Amendment made: No. 64, in page 65, line 13, after "referendum", insert—
  `to which this Part applies'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Schedule 12

  REFERENDUM EXPENSES: QUALIFYING EXPENSES
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 146, leave out lines 5 to 11.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 182, in page 69, line 11, leave out Clause 111.
  Amendment No. 151, in page 148, line 25, leave out Schedule 13.
  Amendment No. 146, in page 75, line 17, leave out Clause 122.
  232
  Government amendment No. 82.
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall deal first with the Government amendments and then turn to those tabled by the Opposition.
  When we considered schedule 12 as a Committee of the whole House, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) suggested that sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) in paragraph 2 looked out of place. We considered that matter and we agree: schedule 12 is almost the mirror image of schedule 7. Although the exclusions to which the sub-paragraphs relate are appropriate in the context of election campaign expenditure—for example in a general election—they do not fit the circumstances of referendum campaigns. He pointed that out, and we were happy to table amendment No. 110, which would remove those two sub-paragraphs. I hope that it will command the broad support of the House.
  I will take the remaining amendments in the group in reverse order. Government amendment No. 82 amends clause 144 so as to add to the list of delegated powers that are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure the order-making power in clause 122. Amendment No. 182, tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and his colleagues, takes a more drastic approach: it would delete the whole clause and with it the order-making power.
  The House will recall that clause 122 was added to the Bill in Committee. It is fair to say that the new clause generated some heat at the end of proceedings on 16 February. It may be as well, therefore, for me to take this opportunity to say a little more about the order-making power set out in the clause.
  The purpose of the clause is to enable the Secretary of State to make provision for the conduct of a referendum to which part VII applies. Although, in accordance with precedent, the clause uses the word "conduct", it is in fact concerned with the administration of a referendum—the nuts and bolts of the polling arrangements. An order made under clause 122 may be expected to do no more than apply to a referendum the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Acts and regulations. An order would thus be concerned with such matters as postal voting, the provision of polling stations, the issue of polling cards and the hours of polling. Those are important but none the less administrative matters, which can sensibly be left to subordinate legislation.
  As was pointed out in Committee, there are several precedents for this order-making power, including legislation passed by previous Conservative Administrations—namely the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Act 1972. Other precedents include the Referendum Act 1975, the Scotland Act 1978, the Wales Act 1978 and, more recently, the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998. The arrangements for the conduct of the elections to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales also derive from subordinate legislation made under the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998.
  I hope that the House will be reassured that we are creating nothing sinister—nothing that may give the Secretary of State power mendaciously to influence the outcome of a referendum campaign. The provision is simply concerned with the mere mechanics of a referendum poll. I point out to the right hon. Member for

  233
  North-West Hampshire that, if any legal dispute should arise, Pepper v. Hart will apply. No doubt he has had a chance to look it up overnight.
  It is appropriate that such an order should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I therefore commend amendment No. 82 to the House.
  7.45 pm
  I turn now to amendments Nos. 182 and 151. It is true that, in its original report, the Neill committee recommended against spending limits in referendum campaigns. Both in the report and in their comments on the draft Bill, members of the committee made it clear that its difficulty with spending limits was based not so much on principle, but on practical grounds. We have rehearsed that argument, so I shall not go into it at great length. The committee had particularly in mind the transient nature of some referendum campaign organisations.
  The Government are not persuaded that the practical difficulties are too great. The Neill committee had already recommended that referendum campaign organisations—not merely those in receipt of public funds, but any that intended to spend more than the de minimis limit—should register with the Electoral Commission. That requirement provides in itself much of the control machinery needed for the imposition of expenditure limits. There is no reason why it should be more difficult, practically and technically, to impose spending limits in referendum campaigns than it is to impose them in constituency election contests or—perhaps I dare say it—campaigns to be mayor of London.
  As to the principle, the Government take the view that it is every bit as desirable to prevent a referendum campaign from being skewed by the amount of money at the disposal of particular participants as it would be in a general election campaign.
  The official Opposition have not really answered that point. There has been much huffing and puffing, but no clear statement as to why they oppose expenditure controls. One of their arguments is that Neill did not recommend them; another is that they would be difficult to organise. However, that does not go to the nub of the issue: why—if it were possible to do so—do the Opposition believe that we should get involved in some form of arms race over who can spend the most in a referendum campaign? That is undesirable. The point is to allow people to choose; it is not about who can spend the most on putting out propaganda. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) remarked in Committee, the Conservatives seem to confuse expenditure controls with the amounts available to parties and other organisations.
  The serious point, which cannot be gainsaid, is that expenditure controls on parties and organisations cannot be relied on to ensure that the same amount is spent by both sides in a referendum campaign. We have been over that ground on previous occasions. As no scheme has been suggested to achieve that result, it is common ground in the House that it would not be practicable. However, that does not dispose of the case for expenditure controls with more limited objectives and, possibly, more modest results.
  234
  We have consistently kept an open mind on the detail of the scheme—especially the figures in schedule 13. We adjusted the limits for political parties, and the basis for such limits, in response to the comments of the Neill committee on the draft Bill. We have continued to invite Opposition Members to tell us if they think that the figures should be further varied.
  The official Opposition have consistently declined to make any suggestions; they simply say that they want no limits at all. They are not prepared to enter serious discussions on how we can ensure that people have a choice that is not skewed by an arms race for who can spend the most. Their only reply to our request to enter that debate is that it is all too difficult. Obviously, we shall vote on whether there should be expenditure controls. However, if there is to be a scheme—as we say there should be—the detail is as right as we could fairly and reasonably make it.
  We continue to think that it is only realistic to regard the larger political parties as likely to want to participate in a referendum campaign, and that the spending limits should reflect the electoral support they enjoy. However, the Bill does not require a party to participate in a campaign; for example, a party may not do so because it is split or for other reasons.
  We have tried to take a principled view; it is right to have expenditure controls, but we do not want an arms race during a referendum campaign. We invited the Conservatives to join us in supporting that view and to discuss how it might be applied. However, they seem to reject the principle altogether. I regret that. If we really care about democracy and the way in which a referendum campaign is conducted, we should try to ensure that there is a reasonably fair playing field. We want to ensure a rough balance—it could never be perfect—so that the people who decide the outcome of the referendum can make up their minds, exercise their judgment and come to a conclusion based on a fair and reasonably balanced presentation of the evidence.
  That is how we intend to progress. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Conservatives will join us.
  Sir George Young: Before I move to the more substantive issues, I wish to press the Minister about Government amendment No. 110. It applies to the exclusion on direct expenses in schedule 12. He pointed out that paragraph 2 of schedule 12 bears a remarkable similarity to paragraph 2 of schedule 7, which is about exclusions on direct expenses in an election. He pointed out that that was not entirely appropriate, particularly because paragraph 2 of schedule 7 refers to expenses in respect of giving electors information about
  their elected representatives or existing or prospective candidates.
  He made the point that, although that provision was appropriate for a general election, it was obviously not appropriate for a referendum.
  Government amendment No. 110. goes slightly further. It will delete paragraph 2(b) of schedule 12. That means that any expenses incurred in sending unsolicited material to supporters of a referendum campaign will no longer be excluded. However, it seems to me that, under the provisions of paragraph 2(b) of schedule 7, identical expenditure seems to be excluded, because it refers to
  any expenses incurred in respect of unsolicited material addressed to party members.

  235
  It is not immediately clear why it is right to exclude the expenses when one sends unsolicited material to party members, but include them when one sends unsolicited material to supporters of a referendum campaign.
  The Minister may be able to tell us why he wants to delete paragraph 2(b) of schedule 12, and I have no argument about knocking out sub-paragraph (a). However, the reasons for the Government's approach are not immediately clear.
  The debate revisits familiar territory, but it would be wrong to let Report stage pass without reference to the most fundamental divergence from the recommendations of the Neill committee. At an appropriate time, the Opposition hope to move formally amendments Nos. 182 and 146 and take the temperature of the House on these constitutional issues. I shall talk to amendments Nos. 182 and 151 and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) wishes to talk to amendment No. 146.
  The Minister and the House know our views, which I set out in Committee on 16 February when I was ably assisted by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and in particular by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). I do not want to repeat that case, but I want to advance the argument by considering the two principal reasons given by the Minister when he resisted our amendment. First, he argued that
  if, as we have agreed, it is right and practical to control spending at major general elections, it is right and practical to control spending in referendum campaigns.
  I leave unanswered the question about what might be a minor general election.
  I want to address the key argument that the Minister has used time and again, and which he has repeated this evening. He argues that if one can cap spending at a general election, one can cap spending in a referendum. That argument was demolished by Lord Neill, and nothing that the Minister has said in the two months since Second Reading has addressed the fundamental point that Lord Neill made. He considered the Government's case and rejected it in paragraphs 12.20 to 12.22 of his report.
  Referendum campaigns are not, as the Minister tells us time and again, the same as general election campaigns. Everyone in the House knows that they are different. In a referendum, we are not choosing a Government, the parties may be split and other organisations are involved. In paragraph 12.30 of his report, Lord Neill concluded:
  To represent referendum campaigns as merely another manifestation of the usual party political battle seems to us both misconceived in principle and false to the history of referendums since 1975.
  We have heard that case repeated this evening, without Lord Neill's objection being addressed. The Government's case for limits is based on that false premise.
  At no time have the Government begun to answer a related question. Why should one base what might be spent in a referendum campaign on, for example, proportional representation for Westminster on how many votes the Labour party received at a general election in which it was neutral on the issue of proportional representation? Trying to base referendum spending limits on votes at the previous general election has no argument of principle whatever to sustain it, and nor has the Minister advanced any.
  As we have heard in many debates today and in Committee, the limits are shot to shreds by loopholes. Foreign residents can take space in newspaper
  236
  advertisements without restrictions thanks to the European convention on human rights. The 24 trade unions that are affiliated to the Labour party can each spend £500,000, lifting the Labour party limit from £5 million to £17 million at a stroke. As we have just heard, one can buy a newspaper—as long as it is the right newspaper—without the limits applying. The argument that one can cap spending in a referendum campaign in the same way that one can cap spending in a general election campaign simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
  The Minister's second argument was that our amendments were a Conservative ploy—a devious attempt by my party somehow to secure advantage. We propose what the Neill committee proposed unanimously. The rules that we want are those that the Government have already applied themselves. The Minister said:
  We believe that it is simply undesirable to have referendums bought by those who are able to pay the largest sums.—[Official Report, 16 February 2000: Vol. 344, c. 1038-39.]
  However, all that he is doing is substituting that undesirability with another one. Referendums will be bought by those who are allowed to pay the largest sum. We have explained time and again how, in a referendum on the euro, the scales might be tipped in favour of one side.
  The Home Secretary defended those limits by saying that the Liberal Democrats would not be able to spend up to that limit. That is not a powerful argument, not least because, under the Bill, the Labour party could, if it wanted to, give the Liberal Democrats the money to support a campaign for the euro.
  Mr. Stunell: The right hon. Gentleman's scenario is improbable. Should he be successful in deleting clause 111, the Labour party could send us an even bigger cheque.
  Sir George Young: I am not sure of the logic of that suggestion. However, I am disappointed that the Conservative party does not feature in any way in that important financial transaction. Perhaps we could receive a commission for facilitating such a transaction between the two main parties.
  Mr. Stunell: The right hon. Gentleman is at least right about the two main parties. The point that I did not make more explicit—I apologise for that—is that all the things that he has described could happen several times over in a regime with no limits. The restrictions provide some limitation.
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman has to address at some point the recommendations of the Neill committee and why it unanimously came to the conclusion that it was impractical to impose limits on referendum campaigns. Although I noticed on the previous occasion we debated this issue that the Liberal Democrats supported the Government, I hope that they will consider the arguments that Neill advanced and the criticisms of the Government's proposal. Perhaps, in another place, they will have second thoughts.
  I regret that the Government will not see reason on our suggestion. The scheme that they are persisting with is based on a flawed policy. It has no basis in principle and

  237
  it will be impossible to implement in practice. At the appropriate time, I shall invite my hon. Friends to express that view in the Lobby.
  Mr. Stunell: Three separate issues have come to the fore, and I shall comment briefly on each of them.
  I, too, would like to hear from the Minister about the detail of the practical effect of Government amendment No. 110. As I understand it, in the first formulation, leaflets distributed during a campaign are exempt because they will be included elsewhere in the election expenses of individual campaigns. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. In a referendum, where there is not an individual campaign as such, those leaflets will be included in the global figure.
  8 pm
  If that is the basis on which we are proceeding, that is fine, but there is potentially a category that is exempted in the first case and now will not be exempted in the second case. I refer to wider campaign literature that does not specifically advocate the case of particular candidates. I seek clarification on that point.
  We debated expenditure limits in a Committee of the whole House, and I thought that the intellectual case made by several Conservative spokesmen did not stand the test of the debate, and the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) as good as conceded the case. The argument is straightforward: the rules and procedures set out in the Bill mean that each political party has a ceiling on the contribution that it can make to a referendum campaign. That ceiling is effectively £5 million each for the Conservative and Labour parties, a lesser amount for the Liberal Democrats, and £500,000 for any other party with representation in this House.
  If one took the gloomiest view from the Conservatives' perspective, which is that every other party in the House was opposed to the Conservatives' case in a referendum on proportional representation or the euro—they are on the losing side of those arguments, in their perception at least—and spent up to its limit, the total ceiling would be under £20 million. If there were no financial limits and every party in the House other than the Conservatives chose to invest in a referendum campaign the amount that the Conservatives invested in the general election, they would spend some £260 million.
  The Conservatives' choice is between no limits, which may mean that some £300 million or even £400 million is spent, or spending that is regulated, however inadequately in their view, which would mean that the disadvantage suffered by them or by minority parties in a referendum campaign—I do not necessarily mean political parties—would not be so great.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) suggested that perhaps I had not addressed the intellectual case set out in the Neill report. I put it to him that he has not addressed the intellectual case of the sheer mathematics of the Bill's provisions, as opposed to the alternative of having no limits at all.
  Having no spending limits would mean no constraints on the spending of the parties, and therefore on the side of the argument with the biggest and deepest pockets.
  238
  Sometimes that will suit cases that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to advocate, sometimes it will suit those that I want to advocate, and there may be occasions when we are on the same side, but that is not the best way to reach decisions in a democracy. While we are introducing a formal process for the general regulation of referendums, we should introduce financial controls as well.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in a referendum the party with the deepest pockets will always be the Government? We saw in the Welsh referendum the extent to which the Government were able to use all their agencies of publicity to put across their case.
  Mr. Stunell: That might be generally true, but there is every indication that in a referendum on the euro, both sides of the argument would have supporters in the UK with very deep pockets, and I would not like to match my personal bank account against that of Mr. Sykes. Time will tell which side of the argument has the money. If we have no financial regulation, and if the hon. Gentleman's point is correct, the Government of the day will be in a position to win every referendum simply because they have the deepest pockets, so I should have thought that his point was an argument in favour of spending limits to level the playing field for the small guys putting a minority view.
  We shall support the retention of clause 111. We believe that there should be spending limits. The reasoning used by the Conservatives in Committee was flawed, and they are making a mistake in using it now.
  I deal now with clause 122 and the powers of the Secretary of State. We were concerned about those powers when they were imported into the Bill. We had some reassurance from the Minister about their limited nature and the fact that they will be tempered with mercy, so we do not need to worry about them. That is fine, but I want to hear a good deal more from the Minister about precisely how those powers are being circumscribed.
  I repeat that we are making legislation that history suggests will last for a long time. The last thorough overhaul of such legislation was in 1883—117 years ago. We are putting in place the foundations of legislation, particularly on referendums, which may not be revisited for a long time. Certainly the legislation will outlast the ministerial lifetime of the present Secretary of State and probably of several Secretaries of State after that. [Interruption.] Well, the Home Secretary may remain in post for 117 years, but that would be an unusual record.
  We have to understand that the rules and regulations that we are introducing may have to be effective in more adverse circumstances than the present ones. When we give the Secretary of State powers relating to elections and referendums, we have to be absolutely sure that the possibility of undue influence or decision making by him is minimised, and although we have had some reassurance today, we remain to be convinced that that is the case.
  Mr. John Hayes: I was inspired to contribute to the debate principally by the speech of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). I imagine that he does not often inspire contributions of any sort, so I say that with generosity.

  239
  There was a lot of talk about intellectualism in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but little evidence of it. He misunderstands the fundamental difference between limits on expenditure per se and limits on the expenditure of those who are permitted to contribute to or to fund campaigns. That lies at the heart of the amendments and of the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). To argue that any restriction or practice is better than none is not a satisfactory way to address our concerns.
  I want to make only two substantial points. The first is that it is not good enough simply to disregard the work that the Neill committee did on this matter. The committee was strong and unanimous in its view and it contradicted the position that has been adopted by the Government. The Minister will remember that Neill was particularly critical of the conduct of the Northern Ireland referendum. I make no judgment on the subject that was being debated in Northern Ireland, but Neill made specific and rather critical comment about that, about expenditure in that referendum campaign, and about the Government's whip hand in the conduct of that campaign.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Northern Ireland referendum was somewhat different. We are discussing whether there should be expenditure restraints on the various campaign organisations and political parties in a national referendum, where the Government, at least for a time, are excluded.
  The Neill committee did not think that that was doable. We say that it is, and we will do it. We paid attention to the Neill argument. Now, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman should pay attention. Let him address the doability argument. That is the only objection that Neill had. There was no objection in principle, as I understand it.
  Mr. Hayes: The Minister is right—the Neill committee criticised the practicality of the measure. My right hon. Friend drew attention to that in his remarks. I was making a different point.
  My second substantial point is that referendums are fundamentally different from general elections. The public expectations and perceptions of referendum campaigns and the spending in referendum campaigns is, to some extent, prejudiced. In other words, there is a widespread view that Governments do not lose referendums. That does not apply to general elections.
  People assume that general elections are likely to be run and financed on a fair and free basis. I suspect that that is not the public expectation and perception of referendums in general. I mentioned Northern Ireland because it illustrates the fact that there is already—I will not say "a presumption of guilt", as that would be going too far—some misapprehension on the part of the public about the conduct and funding of referendum campaigns.
  Mr. George Stevenson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have listened to the debate for many hours, and I am interested in his argument. Does he accept that referendums can fundamentally alter a Government's policy and in some circumstances bring a Government down? Why does he persist in arguing that there is no comparison between referendums and general elections in that sense?
  Mr. Hayes: I would not say that there was no comparison. They are comparable in that sense, as they
  240
  may affect the political direction of a Government or a country. Referendums are different from a general election not just in scale, which is clearly a factor, as the scale of a referendum campaign is considerably greater, but in the public expectation and perception of their conduct and nature.
  I was being rather complimentary about our democracy. Most people think that the way in which we conduct our general elections and the way the principal political parties conduct themselves in the context of general elections is, for the most part, fair, free and honourable. There is the odd exception, but in essence that would be a tenable position to adopt.
  I do not take the same view of referendums. As we already see in press comment and surveys of opinion, people expect referendums not to be conducted in the same free and fair way. We therefore have an extra duty to counteract that and to anticipate those objections by ensuring that the legislation is—to paraphrase the hon. Member for Hazel Grove—fit for the long-term future, if referendums are to play an increasing role in the way we govern our country. That is why I strongly support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I join the debate on this group of amendments because I spoke on the clause when we discussed it in the early hours of the evening of 16 February in Committee on the Floor of the House. I shall highlight those points again, with good reason—not for the sake of duplication, but because, as is acknowledged throughout the House, clause 111 goes to the heart of fairness in referendums. We all recognise that if the Bill is to be effective, it must increase, not diminish, the democratic legitimacy of referendums.
  At the time, I queried how one would manage the suspension of expenditure in local political parties so that that was not computed within the overall limits on expenditure under the rules imposed by the Bill. That was not apparent from the Bill. It is also not clear from the Bill what would happen if a referendum were held on the same day as a general election. In the absence of provision in the Bill, confusion seems to abound.
  That was not a facile point. I had been led to that expectation by no less a person than the Prime Minister, who, early in the course of this Administration, perhaps in order to duck the prevailing lack of enthusiasm for the single currency in the country, suggested that it might be better to have a referendum on the same day as a general election to disguise the issue.
  The debate proceeded, and the Minister was exceptionally generous in his reply. Not sparing my blushes, referring to my speech the Minister said:
  He made a very good speech and raised some forensic points, which deserve much consideration. I should like to consider at greater length some of the finer aspects of the issues that he raised and perhaps write to him on some of them.
  After dealing with a further point, the Minister continued:
  I should like to consider further some of the hon. Gentleman's points, which may deserve some closer thought… They suggest that he is right: if that happens, perhaps we will need further legislation to clarify some of the issues."—[Official Report, 16 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1037-38.]
  The Minister then went on in characteristically generous vein.

  241
  I have received no letter from the Minister on any of those points, which I think are valid and important and go to the heart of the clause. I ask the Minister to reflect carefully whether our amendments are right, and whether the clause should be removed from the Bill until the issues that are fundamental to the fairness of referendums and democratic legitimacy have been addressed.
  Mr. Paterson: Following my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), I shall make a brief contribution and clarify my point.
  If there are artificial limits as set out in schedule 13, the whip hand is the Government's. A recent example, which affected people near my constituency, was the Welsh referendum, in which there was a staggering increase in expenditure by the Welsh Office on what is called "extra publicity".
  The figures are simple. Total publicity spending by the Welsh Office since May 1997 was £5,285,750. Of that, the amount spent on extra publicity was an incredible £2,724,812.5. The rest of that sum, which is slightly less than half, went on opinion poll research, media advertising, direct mail publicity, press releases and websites.
  That shows that if an artificial limit is imposed through schedule 13, those who do not support the Government's cause will be capped. The Government will have access to all the tricks that we witnessed in the Welsh referendum. They will be able to dip into the public purse. Effectively, unlimited spending will be available to finance the Government's cause. That is wrong, which is why I strongly support amendment No. 151.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes)—what a wonderful constituency name that is—and my hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) made short but pithy speeches which were extremely convincing. It would be remiss of the Under-Secretary not to take account of the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire made. The result of the Welsh referendum was desperately close. Those of us who watched with increasing amazement the extraordinary development of the Welsh Assembly and its dramatis personae, and who remember that the flimsiest majority landed us with that Assembly, stress to the Government that my hon. Friend has made a powerful point.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who introduced this brief debate, spoke with his customary eloquence and impeccable logic. I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond properly to my right hon. Friend's trenchant observations.
  I want to concentrate briefly on clause 122. The Under-Secretary was all sweetness, reasonableness and light. He claimed that it was simply an administrative matter, which did not count, that we should not worry about it and that we could trust him. I can probably trust the Under-Secretary and we can probably trust several—not all—Ministers not to get up to truly appalling tricks. However, the clause is open ended. It flies in the face of the Under-Secretary's comments earlier in our proceedings.
  242
  At the beginning of our proceedings, the Minister promised that the measure would be
  a truly generic referendums Bill—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 113.]
  I do not know what that means. On Second Reading, he promised that the Government would table amendments on the nuts and bolts of organising the poll and the count. We therefore expected some nuts and bolts. However, the nuts have produced no bolts. We are considering a Henry VIII clause, whereby the Home Secretary is able to take absolute power to decide all the rules and regulations for referendums, and to create criminal offences in connection with the rules that he sets. That is inimical to true democratic Government. Such a provision should not be in the Bill.
  For all the Minister's personable plausibility and good intentions, he is trying to introduce a wholly unacceptable provision. I was glad that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that he would again support our argument.
  Clause 122 is not good enough. I am sure that those in another place will not believe that it is good enough. We intend to press the amendment to a Division. If the Under-Secretary does not listen to us tonight, I hope that he will listen to the other place. I have no doubt that it will find the provision as unacceptable as we do. Unless the Under-Secretary gives a categorical assurance that the clause will be withdrawn, we shall do our best to delete it this evening.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: First, I shall deal with the issue that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) raised on paragraph 2(b) of schedule 7. The provision is intended to exclude from the ambit of election expenditure unsolicited newsletters and other communications that are sent from, for example, Millbank to Labour party members. Such material is not used to influence the unaffiliated; it is, in a sense, an internal party matter.
  However, referendum campaign bodies are likely to be more ad hoc, with no formal individual membership. It would therefore be almost impossible to decide who constituted a supporter. The equivalent provision in schedule 12 does not fit the circumstances, and is best deleted, as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) proposed in Committee.
  Paragraph 2(b) of schedule 12 refers to supporters. That term is potentially far wider than "members", which is used in schedule 7. However, I shall reconsider the point, and ascertain whether we need to do anything about it. I do not currently believe that I need to make any amendment.
  The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) rightly pointed out that I owed him a letter. We have not forgotten that. He will receive a letter; I shall endeavour to send him it in a week. I ask him to chase me if that does not happen; I am sure that he will.
  The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) asked about nuts and bolts. Clause 122 contains the order-making power, which will apply to the Representation of the People Act 2000 and the attendant regulations. We are including some of the apparatus for proper control of referendum campaigns in the Bill. Provisions under the Representation of the People Act 2000 will also apply because of the way in which the measure

  243
  affects the organisation of polling stations and the whole paraphernalia of referendums. Many of the nuts and bolts are already in place because of recent legislation. For example, the Representation of the People Act 2000 authorises different ways of providing postal ballots. The nuts and bolts will therefore be introduced to a referendum campaign in different ways.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Again, I do not doubt the Under-Secretary's sincerity, but why cannot those nuts and bolts be included in a detailed schedule to the Bill?
  Mr. O'Brien: The operation of the order-making powers is clear. We have said what we intend to do. I do not need to take that further, although I am happy to do so if the hon. Gentleman has another specific point to make. I have made the position as clear I can. There is normally no great problem with the administration of referendums. The contentious matters are those that involve political issues and whether we should cap expenditure.
  Let us consider capping expenditure and the arguments made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. He repeated the points that he has made on previous occasions. He claims that the Neill committee said that capping was not practical and that our proposals are not perfect. The Neill committee did not object in principle; there was no great intellectual case against it. We are discussing the practicalities of whether that can be done. We take the view that it can, hence we are doing it. I cannot take the matter much further than that.
  8.30 pm
  The right hon. Gentleman says that the proposal is not perfectly fair. It is not perfect perhaps, but in our view it represents a broad fairness—a balance between the umbrella groups, with some restrictions on the political parties—that is about as fair as possible in terms of the votes received at the general election. If anything, it gives a little more credit to the Conservative party. It would be very regrettable if any millionaire or multi-billionaire—a Paul Sykes, or anyone richer who opposes him on those issues—sought to buy the outcome of a referendum. We say: let the people decide in any referendum after hearing the arguments presented in a fair and balanced way. The issue should be voter choice, not who has the deepest pocket.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 106
  RESTRICTION ON INCURRING REFERENDUM EXPENSES
  Amendment made: No. 65, in page 67, line 1, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Clause 107

  RESTRICTION ON PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF REFERENDUM EXPENSES
  Amendments made: No. 66, in page 67, line 19, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".
  No. 67, in page 67, line 21, leave out "without reasonable excuse,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 108
  RESTRICTION ON MAKING CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF REFERENDUM EXPENSES
  Amendment made: No. 68, in page 67, line 31, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Clause 111

  SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS ON REFERENDUM EXPENSES BY PERMITTED PARTICIPANTS
  Amendment proposed: No. 182, in page 69, line 11, leave out clause 111.—[Sir G. Young.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 315.

  Division No. 106]

  [8.31 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Amess, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hammond, Philip

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Baldry, Tony

  Hayes, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Heald, Oliver

  Bercow, John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Horam, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brady, Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brazier, Julian

  Key, Robert

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Burns, Simon

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Butterfill, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Letwin, Oliver

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Lidington, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clappison, James

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Loughton, Tim

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Luff, Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Collins, Tim

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Cran, James

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Madel, Sir David

  Duncan, Alan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Maples, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Faber, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fabricant, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fallon, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Norman, Archie

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Page, Richard

  Fraser, Christopher

  Paice, James

  Gale, Roger

  Paterson, Owen

  Garnier, Edward

  Pickles, Eric

  Gibb, Nick

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Prior, David

  Gray, James

  Randall, John

  Green, Damian

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  245

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Ruffley, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Townend, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Trend, Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Shepherd, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Walter, Robert

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Wardle, Charles

  Waterson, Nigel

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Spring, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Willetts, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Wilshire, David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Syms, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Clwyd, Ann

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Austin, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Ballard, Jackie

  Coleman, Iain

  Barnes, Harry

  Connarty, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cooper, Yvette

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Corbett, Robin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cotter, Brian

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cousins, Jim

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Crausby, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Berry, Roger

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Best, Harold

  Cummings, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Borrow, David

  Darvill, Keith

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brake, Tom

  Davidson, Ian

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Breed, Colin

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

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

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Browne, Desmond

  Dawson, Hilton

  Burden, Richard

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Denham, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Doran, Frank

  Burnett, John

  Drew, David

  Burstow, Paul

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Feam, Ronnie

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Cann, Jamie

  Fisher, Mark

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foulkes, George

  Chaytor, David

  Gapes, Mike

  246

  Gardiner, Barry

  Macdonald, Calum

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonnell, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McFall, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McIsaac, Shona

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNulty, Tony

  Goggins, Paul

  MacShane, Denis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Grogan, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gunnell, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hanson, David

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Meale, Alan

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Merron, Gillian

  Healey, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Miller, Andrew

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Heppell, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hesford, Stephen

  Moore, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hoey, Kate

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hope, Phil

  Morley, Elliot

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Oaten, Mark

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hutton, John

  Olner, Bill

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pearson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pendry, Tom

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Pope, Greg

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rapson, Syd

  Khabra, Piara S

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kidney, David

  Rendel, David

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  Laxton, Bob

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lepper, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Leslie, Christopher

  Roy, Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Ruane, Chris

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Linton, Martin

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lock, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Love, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCabe, Steve

  Shaw, Jonathan

  247

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Todd, Mark

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Touhig, Don

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Truswell, Paul

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Tyler, Paul

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Tynan, Bill

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Ward, Ms Claire

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

  Watts, David

  Soley, Clive

  Webb, Steve

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  White, Brian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Willis, Phil

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Winnick, David

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wise, Audrey

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wood, Mike

  Stunell, Andrew

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Timms, Stephen

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 14

  CONTROL OF DONATIONS TO PERMITTED PARTICIPANTS
  Amendments made: No. 111, in page 151, leave out lines 34 to 37 and insert—
  `(b) any relevant donation received by a permitted participant from a trustee of any property (in his capacity as such) which does not constitute a donation transmitted by the trustee to the permitted participant—

  (i) on behalf of a person who, at the time of its receipt by the permitted participant, is a permissible donor falling within section 48(2), or

  (ii) in pursuance of a bequest made by such a person as is mentioned in section 48(3),

  shall be regarded as a relevant donation received by the permitted participant from a person who is not such a permissible donor.'.
  No. 112, in page 152, line 17, at end insert "permitted participant and any".
  No. 113, in page 152, line 18, at end insert "registered party and any".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 115
  SUBMISSION OF RETURNS TO COMMISSION
  Amendment made: No. 69, in page 71, line 24, after "if', insert ", without reasonable excuse,".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Clause 117

  PUBLIC INSPECTION OF RETURNS UNDER SECTION 113
  Amendment made: No. 70, in page 72, line 21, at end insert—
  '(1A) If the return contains a statement of relevant donations in accordance with section 113(2)(d), the Commission shall secure that the copy of the statement made available for public inspection does not include, in the case of any donation by an individual, the donor's address.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 118

  RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION ETC. OF PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL BY CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ETC.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 154, in page 72, line 41, leave out "relevant" and insert "referendum".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 150, in page 73, line 10, leave out from "poll" to end of line 11.
  No. 155, in page 73, leave out lines 19 and 20.
  No. 149, in page 73, line 20, at end insert—
  '(5) (a) No civil servant shall advocate any argument for or against any particular answer to any question in a referendum, notwithstanding the fact that this would be incidental to the issue of a press notice under subsection 3(d).

  (b) In this subsection the term "civil servant" includes any person employed as a special adviser'.

  Mr. Evans: The amendments relate to the conduct of the Government during referendums. Under the Labour Government, referendums are a growing industry: we have had referendums in Scotland, Wales, London and Northern Ireland, and we are promised three more on Europe, proportional representation and the establishment of English regional assemblies. As we know, there was concern about the conduct of the referendum in Wales, which was held on 18 September 1997. Some of the changes proposed under the Bill, such as those relating to core funding, are welcome, but we remain concerned—in particular about the ludicrous and unworkable limits set on expenditure in referendum campaigns.
  8.45 pm
  Page 163 of the Neill committee report states:
  We were disturbed, in particular, by the evidence we heard in Cardiff to the effect that the referendum campaign in Wales in 1997 was very one-sided, with the last-minute No organisation seriously under-funded and having to rely for financial support essentially on a single wealthy donor. The outcome of the Welsh referendum was extremely close, and a fairer campaign might well have resulted in a different outcome.
  A Labour member of the no campaign, Carys Pugh, stated:
  Without Robert Hodge, I do not know what we would have done. We could not have carried on and that would have been gravely unjust."
  Robert Hodge himself said:
  I do not know what the other side spent … but you can rest assured that we spent just short of £100,000. I am led to believe that the other side, with the booklets and everything else, possibly spent a seven figure sum. That puts it in proportion.

  249
  Recommendation 83 in the Neill report says:
  In any referendum campaign there must be a fair opportunity for each side of the argument to be properly put to the voters.
  Neill observed the disquiet about the publications issued and distributed to every household during the 1975 European referendum, the 1997 Assembly election in Wales, the parliamentary referendum in Scotland and the 1998 Greater London Authority referendum. In Wales, a small booklet that was distributed to every household had a big tick on the front, which sent a positive message as the devolution process was explained.
  On page 169 of the report, Neill puts the case for the defence very clearly. He says:
  We believe that it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for the government of the day to offer purely objective and factual information in the course of a referendum campaign, especially when, as will usually be the case, it itself is a party to the campaign. We believe governments should not participate in referendum campaigns in this manner, just as it would be thought to be wholly inappropriate during a general election campaign for the government to print and distribute, at the taxpayers' expense, literature setting out government policy.
  Recommendation 89 states that no literature, "even purportedly 'factual—"' should be sent.
  As Wales has learned to its cost, once the decision is made, even with 50.3 per cent. voting yes and 49.7 per cent. voting no, a determined Government will say "Right, that's it", and they will press ahead. I am unclear about exactly what powers the Electoral Commission will have during the period of a referendum. If the Government want to send out a publication, will the Electoral Commission be able to say that they cannot do so? Will it have the power to examine the literature before it goes out, and be able to edit it? Judging by the Bill, the answer is no.
  The Government have responded to the Neill committee report. Let us say that a Bill is introduced to have a referendum on the euro. As soon as the Government introduce that Bill in Parliament, all the other rules, regulations and restrictions would kick in and apply to every other organisation taking part in the referendum, except for the Government. They could issue a document promoting their policy, funded by the taxpayer and delivered to every household. Page 48 of the Government's response to Neill states:
  In most of the cases in which referendums have been held so far, the purpose of the referendum has been to obtain the endorsement of the electorate for a policy which the government of the day has developed and adopted, and the view has traditionally been that a government has not only a right but a duty to explain and promote its policies.
  The Government have resorted to a 28-day breather when the campaign is not too skewed by the expenditure of large sums of taxpayers' money, as Neill states. So it is all right to spend millions of pounds before D-day—before the 28 days—but then it stops. Before that 28-day breather, the Government can spend millions of pounds on promotions. We know that the Government are good at that.
  The Government are now officially the second biggest spender on advertisements. They spend more than BT, McDonald's or Coca Cola. Only Procter & Gamble spends more than the Government on advertisements. Procter & Gamble, of course, spends the money on items
  250
  associated with spin tumblers, whereas the Government spend it purely on spin. Half a million pounds are currently being spent on the Government's London mayoral election publications.
  We are concerned about the role that the Government will play up to and during the 28-day period. I believe Lord Neill to be correct in asserting that no Government money should be spent on promoting, or otherwise, the issue of the referendum. For goodness' sake, the umbrella groups and the political parties will be doing that. I do not think that any additional money need be spent by a Government during the period of the referendum—and I am not talking about the 28-day period.
  The question of what the Government and civil servants do during and before "D-day 28" is vital. For instance, the number of special advisers has exploded. In 1997, £1.8 million was spent on them; now it is £4 million. In 1997, there were 38 special advisers; now there are 77. What will all those special advisers be doing at the time of the referendum? What role will, for example, the Treasury advisers play during a referendum on the euro? What role will Home Office advisers play in a referendum on proportional representation? What role will advisers from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions play in a referendum on regional assemblies? The Government are even allowing press notices to continue to be issued by them during the 28-day period—with, no doubt, the usual spin put on them by the special advisers. No doubt the Government will consider it legitimate to continue to use such advisers to brief on their policies.
  The integrity of civil servants must be beyond doubt, and one way in which they can be protected is through the Government agreeing that their advisers will not issue press notices relating to the issue of a referendum, and the briefing that goes with them. I understand from earlier debates that no statutory definition has been given of a press notice: what the Government can do is open ended.
  Alastair Campbell must learn the discipline that it would be wholly wrong for him to be paid by the taxpayer to pump out propaganda at the time of a referendum, while briefing journalists accordingly. That would be a rotten practice: it would be against the spirit of the Neill report and against the whole ethos of the Bill.
  There is the additional problem of the internet. I spent some time this evening looking at the No. 10 pages.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Get a life.
  Mr. Evans: The Minister has a point.
  Some of the pages deal with national health service waiting lists. On a day on which we learned that the number of heart bypass operations actually fell last year, is there any mention of that? Of course not; we are merely told that extra patients have been treated, and told of the desire for waiting lists to be reduced. That, arguably, is propaganda from the Government.
  Student maintenance grants are also dealt with. We are told:
  The old system left universities short of funds and students short of money. Our reforms which were based on the Dearing review of higher education will provide more money for higher education.
  There is no mention of the fact that Dearing did not say that tuition fees should not be introduced at the time when grants disappeared. That is another example of propaganda from the Government.

  251
  The manifesto commitments state:
  Education is the Government's number one priority
  and speak of,
  Delivering economic prosperity for the many not the few.
  They speak of being
  Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.
  We are used to all these inane soundbites from the mouth of the Prime Minister, but I think we have every cause for concern when taxpayers' money is being spent on a Government website that is spewing out Government propaganda.
  I wonder what the website would be doing during the period of a referendum. It even includes the Prime Minister's speeches—for instance, one that he delivered at Ghent city hall in Belgium, which I am sure will interest many of us.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Read it out.
  Mr. Evans: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows it by heart, but one section says:
  A few miles from here, in Bruges, another British Prime Minister made a speech. From it stemmed the isolationist and hostile view of the European Union.
  The Prime Minister was referring to Margaret Thatcher. Arguably, that is more propaganda on a website.
  If the Government are to start to promote a referendum on the euro during the referendum period, we are talking about millions of pounds of taxpayers' money being spent on propaganda using the internet, which, as we know, is a growing medium for dissemination of information; it is growing at a tremendous rate. I should like the Minister to consider carefully the sort of approach that the Government will take on the use of special advisers and websites during referendum periods.
  There is another alarming point. In a written question, the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), asked how many press officers there were in the Home Office. The Home Secretary said that there are 14 press officers, but that the press office was being restructured, which could involve the appointment of up to 10 further press officers. Fourteen are already there, yet the Home Office will take on an extra 10. We wonder what they will all do. Will they play a proactive role? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. I know that there have been several shambles in the Home Department in the past three years. No doubt it needs some extra press officers to help to protect it from media inspection and scrutiny, but will those press officers relieve some of the special advisers during the period of referendum, so that they can carry on spinning?
  Our amendments will clean up the stench that surrounds the Government's motives behind the legislative changes. Amendment No. 154 will stop the publication of material during the referendum period by the Government.
  Mr. O'Brien: I think that the hon. Gentleman should be a little careful about using words such as "stench", given the history of the previous Government and the reason why the Neill committee was set up. Does he not think so?
  Mr. Evans: We have accepted the Neill committee proposals. It is a great shame that the Government
  252
  did not. We want the Government to accept the fact that the committee said that it did not wish any publication of material during the period of a referendum. We are talking not about the 28 days, but about any time during that referendum. If the Minister gives us that commitment we will be extremely supportive.
  Amendment No. 155 is consequential on amendment No. 154. Amendment No. 150 will stop press releases from being churned out about the referendum during the period of the referendum, including the 28 days.
  Mr. O'Brien: I have a letter from Lord Neill dated 15 October. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that it says:
  We welcome your proposals on the part which should be played by the government in referendum campaigns, and your recognition of the importance of ensuring that there is a period immediately prior to a referendum in which, as you say, "the government of the day … stands aside and the campaigning is left to the political parties and other organisations."
  Indeed, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), a Conservative Member who was on the committee, welcomed the 28-day period when he spoke in a recent debate in the House.
  Mr. Evans: I know that; I have the letter and have read the Committee proceedings on the Bill. Although the Neill committee welcomed the proposals on the part to be played by the Government in a referendum and believed that the Government would stand aside, I have explained our grave cause for concern about what the Government are able to do during that 28-day period. The expenditure of vast sums of money before the 28-day period begins is something that we take seriously, too.
  Amendment No. 149 will remove the ever-burgeoning army of spin doctors under the chief commander of spin—Alastair Campbell. If Ministers want to get involved in referendums—we would expect them to do so—that is fine, but let them play by the same rules that they are creating for everyone else. Let them stop saying one thing to others, but doing something different themselves. Let them throw away the loaded dice and the marked deck of cards, and let the people decide the issues in a referendum that is free and fair for all.
  Mr. Stunell: The issue of press notices, which is the subject of amendment No. 150, was brought to the fore and debated in Committee. The Government owe some duty to the House to say precisely how they intend to define press releases and press notices, and what action they will take to lower Conservative Members' adrenaline levels on the issue. In the previous debate, the Minister more or less conceded that the drafting of the relevant provisions is sloppy and meaningless and requires some attention.
  9 pm
  The 28-day non-aggression period is desirable. The issue is not whether there should be such a period, but whether the period should be longer. Unfortunately, the impact of this group of amendments would be to remove it, leaving the situation somewhat worse than it was to begin with. In Committee, I made the point that although the 28-day period may not be perfect, it is the best one on offer. I suggested that an alternative approach might be

  253
  for the Government's period of peace to commence on registration of the first body supporting one side or other of the argument. Although that argument did not find favour in Committee, there are other alternatives to the 28-day period. Deleting that period from the Bill is not the right option.
  Amendment No. 149 deals with civil servants, including special advisers. We also debated that issue in Committee. From the way in which the debate developed, I had rather thought that Conservative Members had accepted that it was very unreasonable to introduce such a restriction only on referendums, but not on other United Kingdom elections. A referendum is a pretty rare event in the United Kingdom. In this Parliament, we shall not have even one countrywide referendum.
  Conversely, we often have local government elections and a variety of other considerably significant elections—for example, to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament. There is no suggestion—I do not think that there has ever been a suggestion—that special advisers should be struck dumb for a part of those elections. The turnout of electors and the issues are certainly as important in those elections as they are in a referendum.
  The chances of the Government having a partisan view in those elections are also higher. In this Parliament, Labour candidates have stood, or will stand, in each of those elections. However, the opportunities for special advisers to be spinning and doing all the other evils that have been so eloquently described by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) are not, and have never been, restricted in those elections.
  There may be a case to restrict special advisers' capacity to spin. However, I tell Conservative Members that they are getting the issue out of proportion if they think that the time to stop special advisers must be on the comparatively rare occasion of a national referendum. In referendums, Governments are likely to be less partisan than they are in local government, European, Scottish, Welsh and London mayoral elections, when Labour candidates—in the case of the London elections, one and a bit Labour candidates—will be standing, and the Government will be very anxious for a particular candidate to win. If we are considering establishing restrictions on special advisers, we should strike them dumb in those elections.
  I share Conservative Members' views on the press notices issue. I believe that the 28-day period is the best offer available, as I have not seen a better one. I disagree with them on the issue of striking dumb the special advisers—although I certainly would not object if a general provision on the matter should be proposed. Additionally, an electronic red herring was dragged through the debate, which I believe is the subject of subsequent amendments.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Conservatives get so hypertensive about any references to Europe and a referendum on the single currency that it amazes me that their policy is to oppose having a referendum for two Parliaments. I am worried about their health, because they may not be able to sustain for so long the adrenaline rush that they get every time that Europe is mentioned.
  254
  This is not the first time that we have returned to ground that was travelled over in Committee and other debates—so much so that it is almost as if we are going in circles.
  Clause 118 is our discharge of the Neill recommendation that, at a certain point before a referendum is held, the Government of the day should stand back and leave campaigning to the political parties and the other campaign organisations. The committee was particularly sceptical about material that, in previous cases, has been circulated to the electorate close to the date of the poll and questioned the distinction between factual and persuasive material.
  The clause implements the committee's recommendation by providing for a 28-day embargo on the issuing to the public of Government publications. The charge against the Government is that the clause fails to address the Neill committee's recommendation 89. That will not wash. The clause has been welcomed by the Neill committee. Its comments on the draft Bill were published last summer. More recently, we have had the benefit of the views of the Conservative member of the Neill committee. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said:
  I am glad that the Bill includes the 28-day moratorium, which meets our point—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 67.]
  Mr. Evans: The Minister is saying that the Government would not publish anything within the 28-day period. Is he giving a commitment that, during a referendum campaign, the Government would not publish any documentation and get it delivered to every household?
  Mr. O'Brien: In relation to the referendum campaigns there may well be all sorts of campaigns going on about bonfire night and various other issues. The hon. Gentleman seems to be unclear about the distinction between a general election and a referendum campaign. He has misunderstood what the issue is about.
  We have clear endorsements for clause 118 from the Neill committee, so we want it to remain as it stands. Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 would apply the restrictions in clause 118 not just to the 28-day period before the poll, but to the full referendum period, which could be up to six months. That proposition is fundamentally misconceived and fails to recognise that the 28-day period provided for in clause 118 and the longer referendum period perform two different roles.
  The referendum period will usually begin on the date on which a Bill providing for a referendum is introduced. That is essentially an accounting period. It is the period during which campaigning organisations will be subject to the limits on expenditure and controls on donations. Subject to the expenditure limits, campaigning organisations will be free to espouse their cause throughout the referendum period.
  Clause 118 imposes an absolute prohibition on the publication of material of the kind mentioned in subsection (1). Extending the moratorium to cover the whole referendum period would be equivalent to applying the usual Cabinet Office guidance for the three or four weeks of a general election campaign to the 365-day accounting period provided for in part V. That is daft. The idea that a Government could be run on that basis is absurd. Unlike during a general election campaign, when

  255
  government is placed on a care and maintenance footing, the Government of the day would continue to function during a referendum campaign. There will be foreign Prime Ministers and dignitaries to see and lots of other issues to be properly undertaken. In presenting a Bill to Parliament for a referendum to be held, the Government must be able to explain and present their policies as a Government.
  However, we accept that there comes a time when the Government will step back and leave it to the political parties and others to make the running on the referendum issue. A period of 28 days fits in well with the average length of general election campaigns over the past 50 years. The Neill committee made the analogy with general election campaigns, and that is a standard against which it is entirely appropriate to benchmark clause 118.
  Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 are directed at press notices, press officers and special advisers. The Neill committee's concern was principally that the Government of the day might, at public expense, distribute material—even purportedly factual documents—which put forward the Government's case, or at least would have the effect of influencing the vote. Clause 118 is intended to prohibit that sort of distribution of unsolicited material addressed directly to the public at large.
  The exceptions in clause 3, including press notices, are entirely consistent with the basic proposition that the Government of the day should not be able unfairly to influence the conduct of a referendum campaign. The exemption for press notices is not an attempt to circumvent the basic principle contained in the clause. The point of the restrictions is to prevent the Government from distributing unsolicited mail.
  It was suggested in Committee that the Government of the day might be tempted to stick the words "press notice" on the top of a publicity leaflet and post it through the letter box of everyone in the country. Frankly, this is fanciful and completely ridiculous. A press notice is a notice to the press, and not to the general public, and I cannot see any civil servants getting involved in that sort of scam. If a Government stooped to such tactics, I am confident that the courts would quickly put a stop to it.
  On the role of civil servants, I wish to refer to the press officers at the Home Office. I suspect that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) will find few members of the Gallery—particularly Home Office correspondents—complaining, although getting the phone answered at the press office, despite the number of staff we have, is sometimes difficult. We are doing so much on fighting crime that the press are finding it difficult to get all the information that they need to report it. We want to make sure that the phones are answered. That is perfectly reasonable, and was the result of an independent recommendation. Press officers must be free to direct inquiries made to a Government Department. That they should be able to do so in the run-up to a referendum is wholly in keeping with the approach proposed by the clause.
  To reply to a letter from a member of the public—or indeed from an Opposition Member—or to respond to a question posed by a journalist does not amount to publishing, displaying or distributing material to the public at large or to a sector of the public. Such action in response to individual requests for information amounts to no more than good administration, and it would be wrong to deny the public the service that they have the right to expect from a civil service of the state.
  256
  The basis of all the amendments is misconceived. They rely on the charge that the Bill fails to implement the Neill committee's recommendation 89. The Neill committee's own response to the White Paper exposes that charge as completely false and bogus. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley should withdraw the amendments and acknowledge that clause 118, to paraphrase the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, fully meets the point.
  Mr. Evans: I rather wish that the Parliamentary Secretary—the Minister who normally doles out the cigarettes, as he was described in previous debates—had answered the debate, as we might have got somewhere. That was a characteristically unpleasant response from the Minister.
  All our fears have been fulfilled. I understand now that Alastair Campbell will be able to carry on with his spinning, and ensuring that his army of 77 other spin doctors will be able to carry on spinning during a referendum campaign. I understand also that, prior to the 28-day period, the Government are absolutely free to do whatever they like. The restrictions come in on everybody else, apart from the Government. With the restrictions on expenditure, the dice are loaded completely in favour of the Government.
  We have had no concessions from the Government, and we are extremely concerned that all the loopholes are still there. Call me a cynic, but it is as if the Bill has been written to ensure that the Government are able to have their way. We still remember the way in which the referendum campaign in Wales was run, and that is why I believe the amendments will be visited again in another place. Although we are not pressing these amendments to a vote tonight, it does not mean that we have stopped the fight.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 122

  ORDERS REGULATING CONDUCT OF REFERENDUMS
  Amendment proposed: No. 146, in page 75, line 17, leave out Clause 122.—[Sir P. Cormack.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 290.

  Division No. 107]

  [9.15 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Breed, Colin

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Burnett, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Burns, Simon

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Burstow, Paul

  Bercow, John

  Butterfill, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cash, William

  Boswell, Tim

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Chope, Christopher

  Brady, Graham

  Clappison, James

  Brake, Tom

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  257

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Maples, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Collins, Tim

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Moore, Michael

  Cotter, Brian

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Cran, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Norman, Archie

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Oaten, Mark

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Duncan, Alan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Page, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Faber, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Fabricant, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Fallon, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Feam, Ronnie

  Prior, David

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Randall, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Rendel, David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fraser, Christopher

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gale, Roger

  Ruffley, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gibb, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gill, Christopher

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gray, James

  Shepherd, Richard

  Green, Damian

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Greenway, John

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

  Grieve, Dominic

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hammond, Philip

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Spring, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hayes, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Streeter, Gary

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Stunell, Andrew

  Horam, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Syms, Robert

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Key, Robert

  Townend, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Trend, Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tyler, Paul

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Viggers, Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Letwin, Oliver

  Wardle, Charles

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Webb, Steve

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Whittingdale, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Luff, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Willetts, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Willis, Phil

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Madel, Sir David

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Malins, Humfrey

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Ainger, Nick

  Ashton, Joe

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Allen, Graham

  Austin, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Barnes, Harry

  258

  Barron, Kevin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Beard, Nigel

  Fisher, Mark

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Flint, Caroline

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Foulkes, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gapes, Mike

  Berry, Roger

  Gardiner, Barry

  Best, Harold

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Gerrard, Neil

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Borrow, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Goggins, Paul

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Browne, Desmond

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Gunnell, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caton, Martin

  Hanson, David

  Cawsey, Ian

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Healey, John

  Chaytor, David

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clelland, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hope, Phil

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Colman, Tony

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hurst, Alan

  Corbett, Robin

  Hutton, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cousins, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Cranston, Ross

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Crausby, David

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann Keighley)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cummings, John

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Denham, John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Doran, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Drew, David

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Edwards, Huw

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Laxton, Bob

  Etherington, Bill

  Lepper, David

  259

  Leslie, Christopher

  Roy, Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Ruane, Chris

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Linton, Martin

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lock, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Love, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCabe, Steve

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sheerman, Barry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McDonnell, John

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McFall, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Singh, Marsha

  McIsaac, Shona

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Soley, Clive

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Merron, Gillian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stringer, Graham

  Miller, Andrew

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mitchell, Austin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moftatt, Laura

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Morley, Elliot

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Mountford, Kali

  Thomas' Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Todd, Mark

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Truswell, Paul

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Tynan, Bill

  Pearson, Ian

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pendry, Tom

  Watts, David

  Perham, Ms Linda

  White, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Plaskitt, James

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Pond, Chris

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Pope, Greg

  Wilson, Brian

  Pound, Stephen

  Winnick, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wise, Audrey

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wood, Mike

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Woodward, Shaun

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Woolas, Phil

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Worthington, Tony

  Rapson, Syd

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wyatt, Derek

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Rooney, Terry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 15

  CONTROL OF DONATIONS TO CANDIDATES: NEW SCHEDULE 2A TO THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1983
  Amendments made: No. 114, in page 155, line 47, leave out from "agent" to end of line 50 and insert—
  `("the donee") from a trustee of any property (in his capacity as such) which does not constitute a donation transmitted by the trustee to the donee—

  (a) on behalf of a person who, at the time of its receipt by the donee, is a permissible donor falling within section 48(2) of the 2000 Act, or

  (b) in pursuance of a bequest made by such a person as is mentioned in section 48(3) of that Act,

  shall be regarded as a relevant donation received by the donee from a person who is not such a permissible donor.'.
  No. 115, in page 156, line 35, leave out—
  'a relevant donation received by'.
  No. 116, in page 156, line 36, after "agent" insert—
  `and any relevant donation received by him'.
  No. 117, in page 156, line 36, after first "a" insert "registered party and any".—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 125
  MEANING OF "ELECTION EXPENSES"
  Amendment made: No. 71, in page 78, line 24, leave out "£20" and insert "£50".—[Mr. Touhig.]
Schedule 16

  AMENDMENTS RELATING TO ELECTION PETITIONS
  Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 118, in page 158, leave out lines 7 to 13.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 119 to 122, 132 and 133.
  Mr. Tipping: The amendments deal with the rather arcane practice of election petitions, and I shall deal with them quickly. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of schedule 16, to which amendments Nos. 118 to 120 relate, remove the requirement that parliamentary and local election petitions are tried locally. I understand that a parliamentary election petition has not been heard since 1929. However, new information suggests that some local petitions have been heard fairly recently. Accordingly, amendments Nos. 118, 119 and 120 delete or amend paragraphs 2 to 6 of schedule 16, so as to preserve the status quo. Amendment No. 132 makes consequential changes.
  Amendment No. 119 also repeals section 130(2)(a)(ii) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which prevents a judge from serving on an election court in the area where he practises—a procedure that appears to be out of date.
  Amendments Nos. 121, 122 and 133 relate to paragraph 8 of schedule 16. This paragraph removes the provision in section 153 of the 1983 Act in which an elector may stand in the place of the respondent. That provision dates back to the time when electors and candidates had difficulty travelling. I hope that the House will therefore agree to modernise election practices.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: When the Minister talks about maintaining the status quo, he has our sympathy;

  261
  when he talks about modernisation, he has our deep distrust. Nevertheless, there is nothing too violently appalling in his suggestions, although we shall certainly ensure that they are considered with great assiduity in the other place. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we may want to return to them. However, with that point, I commend the hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 119, in page 158, line 16, leave out from "trial)" to end of line 17 and insert—
  ', in subsection (2)(b) (disqualification of persons to constitute election court) for the words from "area" onwards substitute "area in which he resides.".'.
  No. 120, in page 158, leave out lines 18 and 19.
  No. 121, in page 158, line 21, leave out "152" and insert "153".
  No. 122, in page 158, leave out lines 22 to 27.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Schedule 17

  ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND PROCEEDINGS: MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 123, in page 160, line 26, at end insert—
  '(1A) If any such return contains a statement of donations in accordance with section 81(3)(e) above, the appropriate officer shall secure that the copy of the statement made available for public inspection under subsection (1)(a) above or (as the case may be) supplied under subsection (1)(b) above does not include, in the case of any donation by an individual, the donor's address.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  9.30 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 160, line 30, at end insert—
  '7A.—(1) Section 106 (false statements as to candidates) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) after the words "character or conduct" there shall be inserted the words "or fails to take reasonable steps to withdraw from circulation and public availability a false statement previously made or published".
  (3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
  "(1A) Tor the avoidance of doubt, a person who makes or publishes a statement on the Internet or by other electronic means, or who causes a statement to be so made or published, makes or publishes a statement for the purposes of this subsection; and a person who fails to remove or cause the removal of a statement from the Internet shall be regarded as having failed, for the purposes of this subsection, to take reasonable steps to withdraw that statement from circulation and public availability".'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 160, line 30, at end insert—
  '7B.—(1) Section 106 (false statements as to candidates) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1), the words "(b) for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election" shall be omitted.'.
  Dr. Lewis: The amendments deal with the telling of deliberate lies during an election campaign about a candidate in that campaign, with the intention of damaging his vote. Amendment No. 2 is a probing amendment.
  262
  Amendment No. 1 is more substantive; it is aimed at closing a specific loophole. I declare an interest because the loophole was exposed in a case that affected me. Deliberate lies were told about me during the previous general election campaign. I was able to secure the sevenfold conviction of the person responsible, but the conviction was overturned on appeal on a legal technicality. The purpose of the amendments is to try to close the loophole illustrated by my case.
  I mentioned the matter briefly on Second Reading and in much greater detail in Committee on 10 February. I shall not take up the time of the House by rehearsing those points. I was gratified by the interest and by the support in dealing with the problem that were shown by Conservative Front-Bench Members and by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I was especially touched by the sympathy and concern shown by Labour Members—most notably the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who has probably forgotten more about the internet than I shall ever manage to learn. I have also received sympathy and encouragement—although, as yet, no guarantee of action—from no fewer than three Home Office Ministers. I am sure that they want to close the loophole and I shall be happy to co-operate with them in negotiating the minefield of the knock-on problems that might affect other legislation if my proposal were accepted.
  Section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is short and clear. It states:
  A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—

  (a) before or during an election,

  (b) for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,

  makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate's personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, the statement to be true.
  In order to secure a conviction under that provision, one has to show that what was told was a deliberate lie. It is not enough to show that it was false—one must show that the person who made the allegation against the candidate knew that he was lying when he made it. One also has to show that the person's motive was to affect the result by damaging the candidate's vote. Furthermore, as the section makes clear, it applies only to the period of the election campaign and to polling day itself.
  In the case of the allegations on the internet made against me, it was held by the Crown Prosecution Service that the continued broadcasting of those allegations on the internet throughout the period of the election campaign amounted to a continuous process of re-publication. That view was not upheld on appeal. If deliberately false allegations are placed on the internet even before an election campaign begins, if they are made with the intention of affecting a candidate's vote and if they are not stopped during the campaign, amendment No. 1 would make it clear that that would amount to publication during the election campaign.
  I shall not go through the points that were put to me in an extremely helpful letter that the Minister sent to me yesterday. It outlined the difficulties that might arise if we closed the loophole in the way that I suggest. I assure him that I will take up his offer of commenting on those points, and I am convinced that there are answers to every

  263
  one of the possible objections to closing the loophole that have been made and that he has helpfully gathered together in his letter.
  The normal way to deal with deliberate defamation is through the civil courts, but that breaks down in certain circumstances. The first is when the defamation's damage cannot be undone by the subsequent payment of financial damages. For example, if an election result is decisively affected, no payment of money after the event can compensate for that. It also breaks down if the defamer cannot repay the victim's costs even if the victim succeeds in obtaining an injunction and subsequently wins a civil case.
  What are the ways forward? I have three possible suggestions. First, we could adopt something similar to amendment No. 1 with the added proviso that the deliberate liar should have been challenged to remove the deliberate lie for the entirety of the election campaign, and have failed to do so. Secondly, there is the possibility of adopting the civil route, but indemnifying the candidate who is the victim of the defamation against legal costs if his case against the defamer is proved and the deliberate liar declares his inability to pay his victim's costs after the event. Finally, we could consider adopting the methods used by the Internet Watch Foundation but lay a statutory duty on internet service providers to block access to the sites throughout the campaign.
  I will not take the argument any further at this point, but I look forward to hearing what progress the Government have made in finding their way through the labyrinth that confronts us in this new technological age.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I shall be brief. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. There is universal agreement that the principle that he has outlined is correct.
  I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that perhaps the solution that he should consider is not to think of the internet service provider as the publisher, but more as the post office. He should concentrate on the authors of such libels, because these problems will face many Members in the future. The matter must be resolved.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Although truth is frequently a fugitive and a casualty in general election campaigns, impugning the character of individuals is a very serious matter. We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for the way in which he has approached what has been a distressing matter for him. We are also grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and to all the others who have given support.
  We on the Opposition Front Bench wish to associate ourselves wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend's remarks. I have seen the Minister's letter, and we are grateful for his expression of sympathy. However, it is important that these so-called loopholes are plugged and it is crucial that we reach a proper solution. We shall not press the issue tonight, but we want a solution that provides the answer that my hon. Friend seeks.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Government note the broad support on both sides of the House for dealing with this issue, and the strong sympathy that exists for the proposition made, on this occasion, by the hon. Member
  264
  for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). I have already indicated to him my personal sympathy for his view. There are, however, practical difficulties to overcome. I have set those out in a letter to him, and I offer him another meeting if he wants to discuss the matter further. I am happy to discuss the issues with him. I make it clear that at this stage I can give him no assurance that we will be able to support him, but the door to dialogue is open and I hope that, on that basis, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: In view of that expectedly helpful response from the Under-Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 130

  REDUCTION OF QUALIFYING PERIOD FOR OVERSEAS ELECTORS
  Mr. Walter: I beg to move amendment No. 145, in page 82, line 5, at end insert—
  `and in the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 175, in schedule 18, page 162, leave out lines 1 and 2.
  Mr. Walter: Amendment No. 145 highlights an important inconsistency. The provisions set out in schedule 18 will be inserted in the Companies Act 1985. That would appear to be consistent with clause 48, which says:
  For the purposes of this Part the following are permissible donors … a company … registered under the Companies Act 1985—
  consistent so far—
  or the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
  That order appears to be missing from part IX, and is certainly missing from clause 130 and schedule 18.
  I remind the Minister of the White Paper published by the Home Office, which said:
  The Bill as introduced will amend the Companies Act 1985 to give effect to these conclusions.
  It continued:
  Parallel amendments will be made to the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
  There was temporary devolution to a Northern Ireland Assembly, which has now been suspended. The order to which I referred was passed by the House, and the House has the power to amend it to bring it into line with the Bill. I expect the Government to accept our amendment to expand the provision to bring Northern Ireland companies into line with those in the rest of the UK.
  Amendment No. 175 deals with a concern raised with hon. Members by the Confederation of British Industry, which is the definition of an EU political organisation. Schedule 18 makes it clear that such an organisation can be a political party, but goes on to say that it can also be
  any other organisation which carries on, or proposes to carry on, activities of any political nature in the United Kingdom or any other member State.

  265
  That is a catch-all phrase. What does "any political nature" mean? Does it refer to the Institute for Public Policy Research or the Centre for Policy Studies? Companies are genuinely concerned that contributions that they might make to quasi-academic organisations that produce political papers will be deemed political donations.
  I remind the Minister that in Committee his colleague, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), said:
  We will need to take the issue away and reflect on it.—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee G, 10 February 2000; c. 390.]
  We have not heard that the Government have discussed the matter.
  Mr. Tipping: We talked about this issue at some length in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman has reinforced his points today. Suffice it to say that I recognise, as does the House, that Northern Ireland has its own companies legislation. That is a devolved issue, which the Government believe requires separate and parallel legislation. I know that my answer will be unsatisfactory to him. In view of our lengthy discussion of Northern Ireland issues earlier this evening, I suspect that we will return to this matter at a later date.
  Amendment No. 175 is interesting. The hon. Gentleman says that it has been influenced by the CBI. The Government accept that the current definition of an EU political organisation is very broad and have therefore agreed to consider it further. There is to be a meeting with the CBI this coming Thursday and we shall listen to the views of the CBI. Following the meeting, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. Again, we may need to return to the issue at a later stage.
  Mr. Walter: I expect that we shall revisit the issue in another place. In view of the assurances given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  9.45 pm

Clause 134

  SUPERVISORY POWERS OF COMMISSION
  Amendments made: No. 72, in page 85, line 16, after "or", insert "other".
  No. 73, in page 85, line 26, leave out from "records" to end of line 31 and insert—
  '(3A) Where any such records as are mentioned in subsection (1) or (3) are kept in electronic form, then—

  (a) the power of the Commission under subsection (1) to require any such records to be produced for inspection includes power to require a copy of the records to be made available for inspection in legible form (and subsection (2)(a) shall accordingly apply in relation to any copy so made available); and

  (b) the power of any person ("the inspector") under subsection (3) to inspect any such records includes power to require any person on the premises in question to give the inspector such assistance as he may reasonably require to enable him—

  266

  (i) to inspect and make copies of the records in legible form or to make records of information contained in them, or

  (ii) to inspect and check the operation of any computer, and any associated apparatus or material, that is or has been in use in connection with the keeping of the records.'.

  No. 74, in page 85, line 37, after second "to", insert—
  '(a)".
  No. 75, in page 85, line 38, after "donee)", insert "or
  (b) a person who is (or has been) a candidate at an election (other than a local government election in Scotland) or the election agent for such a candidate,".
  No. 76, in page 85, line 40, after "(2)", insert "(3A),".
  No. 77, in page 85, line 43, after "obtaining", insert—
  '(a)".
  No. 78, in page 85, line 47, at end insert—
  `or
  (b) such information or explanations relating to expenses incurred by or on behalf of candidates within paragraph (b) of that subsection as the Commission reasonably require for the purpose of monitoring compliance on the part of such candidates and their agents with the restrictions imposed by or by virtue of any enactment on the incurring of such expenses,
  as the case may be.'.
  No. 79, in page 86, leave out line 11 and insert—
  'or (in the case of such a party with accounting units) the central organisation of the party or any of its accounting units,'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Schedule 19
  PENALTIES
  Amendment made: No. 124, in page 169, leave out lines 11 to 13.—[Mr. Touhig.]
Clause 141

  OFFENCES COMMITTED BY UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS
  Amendments made: No. 80, in page 91, line 14, leave out from "Act" to "be" in line 16 and insert—
  `, and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any partner, he as well as the partnership shall'.
  No. 81, in page 91, line 20, leave out from "Act" to first "be" in line 27 and insert—
  `and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

  (a) any officer of the association, or

  (b) any member of the committee or other similar governing body of the association,

  he, as well as the association, shall'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 144

  ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
  Amendment made: No. 82, in page 92, line 16, at end insert—
  `(dd) section 122;'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 148

  GENERAL INTERPRETATION
  Amendment made: No. 83, in page 93, line 27, at end insert—
  ' "functions" includes powers and duties;'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Schedule 20

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 125, in page 173, line 22, leave out—
  'In section 3(8)(a) of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978'
  and insert—
  '(1) The European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 (as amended by the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999) is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 3(8)(a)'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 126, 128 to 130 and 134.
  Mr. Tipping: This group of six amendments makes consequential changes to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Scotland Act 1998, arising from part V. Each of those three statutes makes arrangements for the control of election expenditure by registered parties. The detailed arrangements for that, which are set out in subordinate legislation, were intended as stop-gap measures pending the enactment of the Bill.
  Henceforth, campaign expenditure by registered parties at elections to the European and Scottish Parliaments and the Welsh Assembly will be controlled by part V. Accordingly, the powers to regulate such expenditure in those three statutes are no longer necessary and will be repealed by the amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 126, in page 173, line 25, at end insert—
  '(3) In paragraph 2(3A)(a) of Schedule 1 (European Parliamentary elections), for "(including expenses incurred in relation to a general election as a whole)" substitute "of candidates".'.
  No. 127, in page 173, line 36, at end insert—
  '(5) In Schedule 1 (parliamentary elections rules), at the end of rule 14 (publication of statement of persons nominated) insert—
  "(5) The returning officer shall send to the Electoral Commission—

  (a) a copy of the statement; and

  (b) in the case of each candidate standing nominated in respect of whom a certificate has been received by the returning officer in accordance with rule 6A above, a copy of that certificate as well." '.

  No. 128, in page 174, line 37, at end insert—
  '(2A) In section 11(2)(c) (power to make provision about elections) omit "and registered political parties".'.
  No. 129, in page 175, line 18, leave out—
  'In section 5(9) of the Scotland Act 1998'
  and insert—
  '(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows. (2) In section 5(9)'.
  No. 130, in page 175, line 20, at end insert—
  '(3) In section 12(2)(c) (power to make provision about elections) omit "and registered political parties".'.
  No. 131, in page 175, line 34, at end insert—
  Representation of the People Act 2000 (c.00)
  14.—(1) Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (pilot schemes) is amended as follows.
  (2) After subsection (1) insert—
  "(1A) Subsection (1) applies to proposals falling within that subsection which are submitted by a relevant local authority jointly with the Electoral Commission as if in that subsection—

  (a) the first reference to any such authority in paragraph (a), and

  (b) the reference to the authority in paragraph (b)(ii),

  were each a reference to the authority and the Commission; and, in a case where any such proposals are not jointly so submitted, the Secretary of State must consult the Commission before making an order under that subsection."
  (3) In subsection (5)(a), after "the authority concerned" insert "and to the Electoral Commission".
  (4) In subsection (6), for "the authority concerned" substitute "the Electoral Commission".
  (5) After subsection (6) insert—
  "(6A) The report shall be prepared by the Electoral Commission in consultation with the authority concerned; and that authority shall provide the Commission with such assistance as they may reasonably require in connection with the preparation of the report (which may, in particular, include the making by the authority of arrangements for ascertaining the views of voters about the operation of the scheme)."
  (6) In subsection (7), after "The report shall" insert ", in particular,".
  (7) For subsection (10) substitute—
  "(10) Once the Electoral Commission have prepared the report, they shall send a copy of the report—

  (a) to the Secretary of State, and

  (b) to the authority concerned,

  and that authority shall publish the report in their area, in such manner as they think fit, by the end of the period of three months beginning with the date of the declaration of the result of the elections in question."
  15. In section 11 of that Act (revision of procedures in the light of pilot schemes), at the end of subsection (1) insert—
  "The power of the Secretary of State to make such an order shall, however, be exercisable only on a recommendation of the Electoral Commission." '. —[Mr. Touhig.]

Schedule 21

  REPEALS
  Amendments made: No. 132, in page 176, column 3, leave out lines 27 to 30.
  No. 133, in page 176, line 31, column 3, leave out "152" and insert "153".
  No. 134, in page 177, line 8, at end insert—

  `1998 c.38.

  Government of Wales Act 1998.

  In section 11(2)(c), the words "and registered political parties".

  1998. c. 46.

  Scotland Act 1998.

  In section 12(2)(c), the words "and registered political parties".'.

  —[Mr. Touhig.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  9.47 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill is important. It implements commitments that the Government made when we came into office. We said that we would ban the foreign funding of political parties and require the disclosure of large donations. The Bill does that. We said that we would refer the matter of party funding to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and the Bill follows from that. It will improve confidence in our political institutions.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that we wanted to listen during the Bill's passage through the House. The large number of amendments that we tabled in Committee, many of which were first suggested by the Opposition, show that the Government were prepared to listen and to move forward, as far as possible, by consensus. Perhaps we have not always achieved consensus, but we can claim to have achieved it in large measure.
  The Government can claim credit for accepting virtually the whole of the Neill report and introducing reasonable proposals. We can also claim credit for having listened, as we amply demonstrated in Committee and on Report.
  The opposition parties can also claim credit for accepting and subscribing to the thrust of the Neill report and for the constructive way in which, throughout most of the proceedings on the Bill, they have probed and sought to introduce new concepts and ideas. As a result, the Bill is a much better piece of legislation.
  Some issues still divide us, and there are some on which further improvements to the Bill have yet to be made. I am sorry that the official Opposition have not felt able to rally fully to all the provisions on referendums. I wonder whether they would have supported those provisions had they refrained from considering the matter solely from the perspective of the one issue that so preoccupies them. Doubtless the issues will be reconsidered in another place.
  We have had some good debates. The House has debated some contentious issues in rumbustious style, but it has also been in good form when considering matters that can engender consensus. Every hon. Member has an obligation to ensure that we tackle some of the public anxiety that existed in the mid-1990s about the way in which political life was moving. We must ensure that the public's confidence in their political institutions is improved.
  The Government will want to consider some issues further when the Bill reaches another place. We want to settle the matter that the Liberal Democrats raised about how the provisions can best be applied to parties that have a federal structure. We are trying to progress through consensus and to accommodate genuine anxieties about the structure of the Bill.
  It is fair to say that the Bill's structure does not easily accommodate the Liberal Democrats. We hope to integrate the structure of that party into the Bill, through a few appropriate amendments, so that it can continue to function reasonably while complying with the law. I appreciate that Liberal Democrats want to ensure that they are able to comply with the law.
  The provisions on donations and sponsorship require clarification. That applies especially to commercial arrangements, including hiring stands at party conferences.
  270
  That matter has caused anxiety among all parties. Those who work for Members of Parliament or for political parties and have to make decisions and arrangements—commercial or otherwise—need clear law and guidance about the way in which the Bill will affect them.
  Those matters are not likely to be contentious. We agree that work needs to be done in establishing the provisions' operation in detail. However, there is a shared acknowledgement that the issues are complex and require detailed understanding—if only the complexities of political parties' rules on commercial and other funding arrangements, which have developed over many decades and have perhaps become far more complex recently, could be satisfactorily resolved through a spirit of consensus.
  I want to revert to the timing of the implementation of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary raised that matter on Second Reading.
  Mr. Tipping: Sit down.
  Mr. O'Brien: I have received a message in a suitably off-stage voice from the powers that be. It is contrary to the message that I received earlier.
  The Bill is a good measure, which is based on a good report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It deserves to make good progress. I hope that it is in good shape for the travails ahead.
  9.54 pm
  Sir George Young: My party will not obstruct Third Reading for the reasons that it did not obstruct Second Reading. The Bill has a key role to play in cleaning up British politics by setting out a framework with clear rules and an independent umpire and greater transparency. Throughout our discussions there has been a commendable restraint from scoring party points on past transgressions. No party is above criticism and we have a common interest in elevating public esteem for our profession.
  The Bill has been much improved since 10 January. We raised points on the penal regime for volunteers, which has been softened, and the role of the Electoral Commission has been changed. We have made progress on the regime for overseas voters and on the Speaker's Committee. The Bill is in better shape, though not yet of the Savile row quality that Conservative Members like to see. The upper House has adjustments to make on sponsorship, overseas voters, the federal party structure and Northern Ireland, and we shall need a lot of time to consider the raft of Lords amendments when the Bill returns to this House.
  We could not reach agreement on a number of issues on which we backed the Neill committee and the Government opposed it. The Bill faces a tough timetable, as the Minister reminded us yesterday.

  271
  I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). They bore the burden of the Bill—which was subcontracted to them by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary, who is fully stretched by keeping an eye on what the Home Office is getting up to—but were ably assisted by two jobbing builders, my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack).
  It would be churlish not to compliment the two Ministers on their conciliatory approach, which assisted consideration of the Bill. I referred to one as the tough copper who shines the bright light in our eyes and to the other as the chap with the cigarettes. They extracted no confessions from the Opposition, but their co-operative approach made it easier to deal with a long and complicated Bill. Although we differed from the hon. Members for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) at times, we very much welcomed their thoughtful and constructive approach.
  I am pleased that it has been possible to complete consideration of the Bill without the savage guillotines that the Government have applied on other occasions to get their legislation through the House. We have not seen the last of the Bill. It is not perfect, although we have improved it. The Opposition wish it well.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Stunell: I shall be brief.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Two minutes.
  Mr. Stunell: Indeed. I understand the pressures of time. I welcome the fact that we have reached Third Reading as this significant Bill will have far-reaching consequences. The controls on general election expenditure at national level are long overdue and most welcome, and the introduction of a formal framework for referendums is also welcome.
  I thank the ministerial team, who have been courteous and, on the whole, helpful to Opposition parties. I particularly welcome the Minister's somewhat abbreviated comments on the Liberal Democrats' difficulties with a particular aspect of the Bill. I reassert that we fully favour total compliance with the Bill and its guidelines. We have no wish to seek any way around it. Although we believe that there are implementation difficulties, the general thrust of the Bill is right and has been from the beginning. We have been happy to support it at each stage and do so tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
  It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.).

ESTIMATES, 2000–01 (NAVY) VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 2001 a number not exceeding 47,345 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service, a number not exceeding 17,148 for Service in the Reserve Naval and Marine Forces, and a number not exceeding 200 for Service as Special Members of the Reserve Naval Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

ESTIMATES, 2000–01 (ARMY) VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 2001 a number not exceeding 128,235 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 84,295 for Service in the Reserve Land Forces, and a number not exceeding 6,000 for Service as Special Members of the Reserve Land Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

ESTIMATES, 2000–01 (AIR) VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 2001 a number not exceeding 57,450 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 26,000 for Service in the Reserve Air Forces, and a number not exceeding 430 for Service as Special Members of the Reserve Air Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1998–1999
Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £37,847,584.45 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended on 31st March 1999, as set out in HC 276.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1999–2000
Resolved,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £2,510,712,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 2000, as set out in HC 242, 243 and 275.

ESTIMATES, 2000–01 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Civil and Defence Services for the year ending on 31st March 2001, as set out in HC 244.
Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Andrew Smith, Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Stephen Timms and Miss Melanie Johnson do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Mr. Stephen Timms accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1999, 2000 and 2001: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 86.].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  LONDON GOVERNMENT
  That the draft Greater London Authority Elections (Expenses) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Forestry Commissioners) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Rural Banks
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Paul Marsden: On behalf of 1,850 people living in the rural areas of Shrewsbury and Atcham and Shropshire, I wish to present a petition which I wholeheartedly support.
  The petition states:

  To the House of Commons

  The Petition of Shropshire Residents

  Declares that

  The threat to close the rural Lloyds TSB bank in Pontesbury should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. It would affect 400 customers, two staff and is another indication of the decline in the provision of rural services by a major bank.
  The Petitioners Therefore Request that the House of Commons
  Urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to review the practice of major banks closing rural branches.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Lung Cancer (Women)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
10.2 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: I raise this subject in some anger because of the disdain manifested by tobacco chiefs and their friends, among whom is a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. They have displayed total irresponsibility in respect of women and lung cancer. The Government have shown a degree of nonchalance about an issue that affects the health of many women in this country and throughout the developed world.
Since 1987, more women in the United States of America have died of lung cancer than of breast cancer. It is four times more common than cancer of the cervix. Lung cancer is the most common cancer in the world and the third most common cause of death in the UK, with about 30,000 people a year dying of it. Among men, deaths from lung cancer increased by 20 per cent. between 1976 and 1994, but among women the increase was 150 per cent. in the same period. Nearly one half of all new lung cancer cases are women. The problem must be addressed.
I believe that the problem has arisen because of the increasing propensity of young women to smoke cigarettes. Women in the United States are twice as likely as men to develop lung cancer, despite the fact that women smoke less than men and women smokers inhale less deeply than men smokers.
That shows that there may be genetic differences between men and women which result in cigarette smoke and the chemicals it contains having different effects on their biochemistry. As the human genome project unfolds, the problem will be that people will think that they do not have the gene in question, and can smoke as much as they like because they are not predisposed to these cancers and the development of illnesses associated with cancers and chemicals in the smoke.
At the recent world summit on cancer in Paris, the potential epidemic of lung cancer was underlined and equated with the increasing prevalence of smoking among women in the developing world. Ninety per cent. of lung cancers are smoking related. It is disturbing to realise that cigarette smoke is the greatest serial killer in the western world, and smoking is most common among young people in the 20 to 24 age group. Each day, 450 teenagers and children start smoking, and it is estimated that a quarter of all 15-year-olds in the United Kingdom smoke.
Lung cancer sufferers may be treated by surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy or a combination of those treatments. Five-year survival rates remain poor, and according to the Cancer Research Campaign and BACUP, the British Association of Cancer United Patients, five-year survival rates are half as good in the UK as in France. In this country, 7 per cent. of lung cancer patients are still alive five years after diagnosis, whereas in France 14 per cent. survive that long. There is plenty of evidence to show that outcomes are better if treatment is managed by specialist, multi-disciplinary teams, and more patients should have access to that type of care. There is also an urgent need for extended radiotherapy and for more lung cancer specialists.

275
As regards screening for lung cancer, long-term recovery depends more on early detection than on any other factor. A recent conference at the Royal Society of Medicine focused on improved methods of detecting lung cancer, which could lead to the development of a screening system similar to that used for cervical cancer. The United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research into lung cancer, chaired by Professor Ian Smith of the Royal Marsden, is currently designing a proposal for a lung cancer screening trial—so-called spiral CT scanning. Data from the United States of America and Japan suggest that such screening has a higher pick-up rate than even screening for breast cancer, and that most of the tumours it identifies are small and surgically curable. I hope that funding will be provided for the NHS research and development budget for that trial.
The Government have some significant initiatives to tackle lung cancer, especially as it affects women. In the past year, the Department of Health has issued guidance on treating lung cancer as part of its series of guidelines on different types of cancer and their treatments. Last spring, the previous Health Minister, the noble Baroness Hayman, announced £10 million for new initiatives to improve lung cancer services, primarily by speeding up access to diagnosis and treatment.
Department of Health figures show that treating smoking-related diseases costs the national health service £1.7 billion per year. The previous Minister for Public Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), said that reducing smoking was the Government's top public health priority. Ministers have made available £100 million over three years for anti-smoking initiatives. In the pre-Budget statement in November 1999, the Chancellor announced that future real term increases in tobacco duties would be spent on health care. That is an amazing step forward. Tobacco duty will rise by 5 per cent. in real terms next month, yielding an additional £300 million a year for the health service. There is a case for using that money to target lung cancer, given its links to tobacco.
Ranged against the Government is a powerful tobacco industry. Documents recently released under the US freedom of information legislation show that the industry plans to use a variety of techniques to target women, particularly young women, women in the third and developing world, women who are unemployed and those on low incomes. In this country 90 per cent. of lone parents, mostly women, smoke. We would do well to remember that 41,000 people in the country die each year because of smoking-related illnesses—not just lung cancers, but heart disease, strokes and other illnesses associated with tobacco.
It would, however, be less than honest to forget that there is a shadowy third party in the equation. Successive Governments have found tobacco to be an apparently endless source of revenue, and it would seem that they are now as addicted to the tobacco revenues as the tobacco consumers are to tobacco. There is therefore a dilemma, or rather a series of dilemmas. Smokers are numerous, and although their addiction is recognised, they are encouraged by groups such as FOREST—the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco—and the tobacco industry to regard smoking as a human right.
276
Legislation to prohibit tobacco does not seem to be an option. Health education programmes make the Government feel rather good, and the tobacco industry loves that, because it knows that they are completely ineffective among the population whom it is most anxious to target: young women. Leaving it to individuals is not enough, in my opinion and that of others. We need collective activity against the whole tobacco industry.
The Exchequer, of course, finds it difficult to forgo such an important source of revenue. So what are the options? Is it really an option for us, knowing the facts as we do, to stand by and let succeeding generations become addicted to tobacco and suffer the consequences? Much could be done through the engineering of a social change that could phase out tobacco use over a generation. Gradual change would be easier to implement, and would make it easier to compensate for effects such as loss of revenue. Gradual change, however, should not be interpreted as a willingness to let tobacco companies off the hook; quite the contrary. Surely it is time we decided that the injury they cause our society is unacceptable.
A system of progressively punitive taxation on the commercial activity of tobacco manufacture—not just a tax on the product, but a special tax on the profitability of the industry—would allow a screw to be tightened progressively, which would eventually cause companies to diversify into non-harmful products, or to wither and eventually become much less attractive to investors. In the end, they would simply disappear. There are recent precedents for that, in the form of windfall taxes.
There cannot be an inalienable right to trade in products that cause misery, premature morbidity and death. We need to increase awareness of tobacco consumption as the single most important women's health issue—which I believe it is—rather than as a personal freedom. Women must be made aware of their special susceptibility to lung cancer and other problems, and must be given more practical help and support to overcome the problems of addiction and social pressures to smoke. The industry must also have its wings clipped in terms of the marketing of its existing products, and must be given notice of the determination that its products will not be tolerated in the future and that effective steps will be taken to phase out production altogether.
It is vital that research into the treatment of tobacco-related disease should continue. Excellent work is going on at, for instance, the Roy Castle centre in Liverpool, but I believe that a national cancer institute should co-ordinate a major clinical research effort focused on women's lung cancer, while applying continued pressure on succeeding Governments to ensure that an effective solution is found to the social problem of tobacco production and marketing.
I plead with the Minister to "make my Parliament" and to make her career. I plead with her to take up the cudgels and save all the thousands of lives that might otherwise be ended because of smoking, particularly among young women. That is the action that would make the best headlines and engender confidence in our cancer programme.
10.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for raising

277
what is an important matter. As he pointed out, the scale of the problem is considerable. Lung cancer is the most common cancer in England and Wales. There are about 35,000 new cases every year and 30,000 deaths, of which some 11,000 are women.
Although the number of men diagnosed with lung cancer has been steadily falling for almost two decades, we are seeing a rise in the number of women diagnosed with the disease. That is of great concern. The latest figures suggest that, between 1993 and 1996, there was a rise of about 5 per cent. in the number of women diagnosed with lung cancer, at a time when the number of men diagnosed fell by an equal amount.
We have to do better. The United Kingdom has one of the worst records in Europe on deaths from lung cancer among women, with death rates more than double those of many European Union countries. The Government have set clear and demanding targets for improvement. In the White Paper entitled "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", which was published in July last year, we committed ourselves to achieving a reduction in the death rate from cancer among people aged under 75 by one fifth by 2010. That translates into saving 100,000 lives. The Secretary of State for Health has made clear his personal commitment to tackling the big killers: cancer and coronary heart disease.
If we are to meet those targets on cancer, that will mean not only tackling lung cancer, including among women, but taking the right approach to cancer across the board. It will mean not simply improving treatment services, vital though that is, and reducing waiting times, essential though that is, but having a full multi-pronged strategy to bring together prevention, early detection, screening, access to services, treatment and research—action across the board.
We have already taken several important steps towards an integrated approach towards cancers in general and lung cancer in particular. Professor Mike Richards, our national cancer director, is responsible for improving cancer care across the board. In particular, with lung cancer prevention is extremely important. Given the technology and treatments that are available, we can make the greatest difference through prevention of lung cancer. That is the way to save the lives of both women and men.
My hon. Friend is right to say that lung cancer is highly preventable. Smoking is the primary cause of 90 per cent. of lung cancers. We know, too, that 70 per cent. of smokers say that they want to give up. Put simply, if we can support more smokers and help them to quit, we will make a big impact on lung cancer.
Today's epidemic of lung cancer among women largely reflects the fact that women took up smoking from the second world war onwards. The current alarmingly high rates of smoking among young girls will, if we do nothing, lead in due course to many more lung cancer deaths among women in the first few decades of the new millennium.
Recent research suggests that women smokers may be more genetically susceptible to tobacco carcinogens than men and therefore more likely to contract the main types of lung cancer at every level of exposure to cigarette smoke. That is all the more reason to take seriously the smoking epidemic among women.
278
The Government's programme to tackle smoking was outlined in "Smoking Kills", which was published in December 1998. In "Smoking Kills", we committed ourselves to achieving three clear and strong targets: a reduction in smoking throughout all social groups, so that the overall prevalence of smoking in the adult population falls from 28 per cent. to 24 per cent. by 2010; a reduction in the number of 11 to 15-year-olds smoking regularly from 13 per cent. to 9 per cent. over the same period; and a reduction in the number of pregnant smokers from 23 per cent. to 15 per cent..
Clearly, to achieve the pregnant smokers target, we must ensure that our campaign reaches women. To achieve the reduction in the number of 11 to 15-year-olds who smoke regularly, we need specifically to ensure that we target young women smokers.
As my hon. Friend said, we backed up that commitment with more than £100 million, over three years, for smoking cessation and tobacco education. There will therefore be additional support for smoking cessation in the 26 health action zones. Those services are now all up and running. Free nicotine replacement therapy for smokers on low incomes will be available, first, in health action zones, and, from April, across the country. Moreover, from April, additional money will be invested to help all health authorities across England to provide specialist smoking cessation services. From next financial year, all smokers who require specialist help should be able to get support. That is a huge step forward. Never before have a Government introduced an overarching campaign to stop smoking.
The United Kingdom is a world leader in providing smoking cessation services to its population. More smokers, particularly more heavily dependent smokers who have been unable to quit without specialist help, should be helped to quit. Providing them with such help will cut the toll of death and disease from smoking, particularly lung cancer deaths. So far, the results show that 55 per cent. of those who are accessing the new smoking cessation services are women. We therefore expect to have a particular impact on women smokers.
Smoking cessation support is only part of the programme. The tobacco education campaign was launched successfully—in December 1999, under the slogan, "Don't give up giving up"—to encourage smokers to persevere until they succeed in quitting. The helpline has received almost 80,000 calls since the campaign started. We are developing ideas for more targeted campaigns, building on the general campaign that we have already launched. As I said, as smoking rates for young girls are alarming, the campaign aimed at young people must aim to have a real impact on that group.
We shall also fulfil our manifesto commitment to ban tobacco advertising. The high court has supported our case to introduce the ban. If the tobacco companies were to drop their opposition to the ban, we would be able to implement it straight away. We estimate that the ban could, in the short term, save 1,500 to 1,600 lives a year.
I take issue with my hon. Friend that the Government might be reluctant to act on smoking because of the impact on tobacco revenue. That is plain wrong. The Government's case on tackling smoking is completely independent of the impact that that might have on tobacco revenue. We have made that case extremely strongly.

279
It is a public health measure. The Chancellor has made it very clear in his actions on tackling smoking that he supports the public health aspects of the policy.
There is a case for a stronger regulatory framework on tobacco products, and for actions such as tackling tobacco additives. That is one of the issues that we are pursuing in the European framework. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is further action that we have to take—we are taking it—on those issues.
Prevention is the best way of tackling lung cancer. However, as my hon. Friend has rightly pointed out, we also need to work on early detection and screening. Survival rates for cancer are poor, partly because of the difficulty of detecting the condition at an early stage.
Recommendations on national screening programmes are considered by the United Kingdom national screening committee, which advises Ministers on all aspects of screening policy. The NSC assesses proposed new screening programmes against a set of internationally recognised criteria, and draws upon the latest research evidence and the skills of specially convened multidisciplinary expert groups.
Currently, screening for lung cancer would not meet the NSC's criteria for a screening programme, because there is no evidence of the effectiveness of screening. More research is needed on that matter. We are aware of recent reports from the United States suggesting that it is possible to detect lung cancer at a stage when it is still susceptible to treatment. We are also aware of the work being done in this country—to which my hon. Friend referred—to examine some of the issues raised in the United States. The NSC will review its position on screening for lung cancer in the light of any robust new evidence.
High quality diagnosis and treatment are at the centre of our commitment to cancer care. Patients and clinicians alike want faster and better care. Patients need to have confidence in the health service and to know that if they have symptoms that could be cancer, they will be able to discuss them with their GP and be referred quickly and appropriately if necessary.
Although more than 220,000 cases of cancer are diagnosed each year, an individual GP is unlikely to see more than a few cases. That is why we are working with primary and secondary care providers, the voluntary sector and patient groups to develop cancer guidelines for primary health care teams, to help them identify those patients most likely to have cancer and to require urgent specialist investigation.
280
Patients who have suspected cancer want to be seen by a specialist quickly to take away the uncertainty and anxiety. That is why it is so important that we move ahead in implementing the two-week standard for all cases of suspected cancer. That standard of care will apply to all lung cancer patients needing an urgent referral from April this year. That is supported by additional resources to speed access to diagnosis and care.
We must also ensure that all cancer patients, wherever they live, have access to the same high-quality services. My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of having access to multi-disciplinary teams. I agree that that is vital. The work being done by the cancer collaboratives, putting patients at the centre of care, following the process through from primary care in multidisciplinary teams and encouraging working together to cut waiting times and improve the quality of care has a huge potential to make a big difference for patients with lung cancer and other cancers as we roll the programme out. We have invested an extra £70 million in cancer services since 1997 and will be investing a further £80 million over the next two years specifically in cancer treatment and diagnosis.
Whatever improvements we manage to make in the prevention and treatment of cancer, we still need to know more and to continue to support research. The Government fund research into cancer in many ways—through the national health service research and development levy and through specific projects, including the development and evaluation of clinical nurse specialist follow-up in the management of patients with lung cancer and a large-scale trial of chemotherapy for all stages of non-small cell lung cancer.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. He is right that lung cancer is an increasingly serious issue for women. I hope that I have made clear to him the seriousness with which the Government treat cancer in general and lung cancer in particular among women. We are determined to make a difference on the big killers—cancer and coronary heart disease. The best way to do that is by tackling cancer across the board, through action on prevention, screening, fast access to treatment and high-quality treatment, as well as palliative care. We need to improve the lot of cancer sufferers and prevent far more people—women as well as men—from contracting cancer in the first place.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Textile Industry
Motion made and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Dowd.]
10 am
Judy Mallaber: I welcome this opportunity to debate a national strategy for the United Kingdom textile and clothing industry, and I thank Madam Speaker for recognising its importance by allowing us to discuss this. I know that we were in competition with some of my colleagues from the east midlands, who sought an Adjournment debate on the economy of that region. Given that textiles and clothing are the region's second largest manufacturing industry, today's debate will go some way towards meeting their request.
I was privileged to succeed by hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) as chair of the all-party parliamentary clothing, textile, footwear and carpet group. In November 1998, he initiated a debate on the industry, and there have been several since then, including a memorable one in which we paraded in hats of the finest quality, which were made in Luton. That was most enjoyable, and generated considerable publicity for the industry. Such publicity is one of the aims of today's debate.
Those all-party group members who tabled an early-day motion last week and sought today's debate did so because the industry has reached a watershed—it is make or break time. As I speak, 200 more workers in my constituency are being made redundant in a Courtaulds factory that is closing down. The industry and its employees are experiencing difficult times. Marks and Spencer, of which we will no doubt hear more in this debate, has even killed off St. Michael.
On a more positive note, an industry report produced over the past year now offers a strategic way forward by providing the opportunity to retain a strong, though changing, clothing and textile industry. Department of Trade and Industry Ministers gave a lead by encouraging industry partners to produce that report, and I applaud them and the DTI staff who helped to produce it. Once consultation on the report is complete, all parts of the industry must work together and act urgently on its recommendations. We cannot afford to let those recommendations rest. The Government must provide support so that the industry can move forward, and I hope that today's debate will help that process. We must grasp the future now, or accept continuing decline in the industry as inevitable and unstoppable.
The report's executive summary says that:
the industry is currently facing the biggest challenge in its history. Low labour-cost suppliers are securing an increasingly large share of world markets, state aids are distorting competition and sourcing patterns on the UK High Street are changing.
2WH
The industry must respond quickly to the changing circumstances. If it does so, it will slow the pace and scale of its contraction and increase the chances of maintaining critical mass.
The consequences of failing to respond quickly are obvious: continuing job losses, continuing decline and no future for an industry that, in my view, ought to have one.
I shall return to the document's details in due course, but the main message of today's debate is that the textiles industry is important to the UK economy and can remain important, even though it may change. The industry itself, its commentators and all levels of Government must stop writing off the industry. They must accept and believe that it is not just a sunset industry and that action can be taken. This morning, I took part in a programme on Radio Derby. It tried to concentrate on doom and gloom, but fortunately some of the other people taking part, who were involved in preparing the report, are looking for a way forward although they face job losses in their own companies and unions. We should not talk down the industry, but accept that while it has problems, it also has a future. That has implications not only for the industry, but for government at all levels.
I should like to make a few comments about the importance of the textile and clothing industry and the problems that it faces. I shall then say more about the strategy document and highlight a few of its recommendations, including the action and support that are being requested from Government and public agencies. I can only touch on the issues involved, which are highly complex and cover a wide range of areas. No doubt others will want to discuss some of those issues in more detail. Several other hon. Members would have liked to have been here today, but unfortunately had other commitments. I am sure that they will take part in the continuing debate in the months ahead.
My main point concerns the importance of the industry. It is still the eighth largest manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom, and we should not just ignore it on the assumption that it is going down the Swanee. It has a future. The entire sector of clothing, textiles and footwear has sales of more than £17 billion and employs about 306,000 people. It employs more people than agriculture, motor vehicle manufacture and the chemical industry, and is bigger than the coke and nuclear fuel sector and the rubber and plastics sector. Although people in the industry do not necessarily begrudge the help that is given to farmers and aerospace, they point out that they need help as well. Generally—although not always—they are hoping not just for a handout, but for assistance, on the basis that other industries with fewer employees are receiving it. The document's recommendations are a starting point in enabling that to happen.
Of the 306,000 employees in the industry, 160,000 work in the textiles sector and 119,000 in the clothing sector. The industry is of particular significance in certain regions. A quarter of its jobs are in the east midlands, and it is vital to the local economies of towns and cities such as Leicester, Mansfield, Sutton-in-Ashfield and those in the Amber Valley area. It accounts for a quarter of all manufacturing jobs in Nottinghamshire and Leicester. I am sure that other hon. Members will refer to sectors of the industry that have a proud history in their regions.

3WH
Nobody can have failed to hear the screams of anguish in recent months and years as jobs continue to disappear. Import penetration is high. Although many imports come from countries with very low labour costs, many come from those with high investment. When the mayor of my local council—who was himself recently made redundant from Stevenson's dyeing works—visited China to look at the textiles industry, he was amazed by the level of investment and the capital equipment, which is often way ahead of ours. However, one of the Japanese companies that he visited was considering moving to Indonesia, where it would benefit from high capital investment and low labour costs. Both are significant.
Pressure also comes from high street retailers. By seeking ever lower prices, they encourage bigger manufacturers into cheap offshore supply strategies, while smaller companies are left to flounder. Courtaulds, which has just closed its factory in my area, mainly supplies Marks and Spencer, and said that the problem is caused by overseas competition—although some of that arises from its own overseas production. It is a complex matter.
Between September 1998 and September 1999, more than 36,000 textiles and clothing workers lost their jobs—more than 690 workers for every week of the year. Other hon. Members will, rightly, want to discuss in this debate the strong pound, international trade, tariff barriers, and what should be done in the various trade talks that are to take place. While those are important elements of the problem, it is of longer standing than that. Since 1994, more than 1,300 clothing companies and 468 textiles companies have ceased to exist, and the problem predates that by a long way.
Facing up to the challenge of cheap imports and a shrinking market has not been easy. Under-investment in technology, innovation and training has made closure the only feasible outcome for several companies, including some of those that I mentioned. This is a traditional sector, but it has to adapt to today's knowledge-led economy. That is possible; the opportunities exist. We can have a clothing and textiles industry in the future. It may be different, but the industry can adapt. However, many of the companies are small and medium-sized enterprises, and they need help to develop and access the resources that exist.
The textile and clothing strategy group is a mixture of the British Apparel and Textile Confederation, industrialists, retailers, academics and union representatives; that is a broad range. Its report is now being consulted on, and I understand that the group has received a number of suggestions for fleshing out its recommendations. The report makes 51 recommendations and aims to find a way forward. The prime aim is substantially to improve the industry's ability to compete successfully in the global marketplace, and the report puts great emphasis on the need for the industry to adapt. Innovation, diversification, training, marketing, exporting and networking are all cruical to competitiveness.
The report says that it does not
seek to protect the domestic industry from the winds of change.
4WH
It recognises that there are some aspects of textile and clothing manufacturing in which the UK will never be competitive, but it also recognises that the industry has tremendous strengths and that there are great opportunities in areas such as technical textiles, designer wear, dyeing and finishing, branded clothing, capital intensive manufacturing and high-value niche markets. The trick is to try to find the sectors in which we can compete and to build on them. Forward-looking companies have been able to do that. One of the companies in my constituency, Guilford Europe, realised some years ago that it would not be able to compete in high production, high turnover, very low-cost manufacturing of clothes, so it decided to diversify. It studied the market, changed its production line and moved to producing fabric for cars. It is now doing well; it is a successful company. It is possible to achieve that, although other companies will not find it so easy. We have to consider how we can assist them.
The report contains recommendations aimed at manufacturers, training providers, support agencies, employers' federations and others, including the Department of Trade and Industry. The main focus is on what the industry should do, but it also needs strong leadership and support from all levels of government. Most companies operating in the sector are small and medium-sized enterprises. Many simply do not have the personnel and resources to implement such changes on their own, and several of the employers' federations are in a similar position. The report contains a range of recommendations but puts a fairly heavy onus on the federations and other parts of the industry. That needs to be combined with Government support.
I will give an example. One recommendation is that the British Clothing Industry Association and other trade associations should introduce proposals to strengthen their marketing skills. The sector needs to work collectively, but many small and medium-sized enterprises do not know where to start, as they are not used to working collaboratively. We are always told that one advantage of the Italian industry—one European industry that seems to have flourished—is that its members are more prepared to work collaboratively. That may or may not be true, but we should investigate it and learn from it. To be effective, companies will need marketing help from public agencies, as well as the trade organisations. An individual company cannot necessarily employ its own marketing manager; it will need assistance to be able to do that.
Again, there are positive examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) is sorry that he cannot be here today. As he represents Kidderminister, he is the carpets Member, and we have added carpets to the name of our group, I need to mention the carpet industry. He wanted to celebrate the success of some of his local companies, such as Tompkinsons, Brintons and Victoria. The companies that have invested in new plant and considered niche marketing have been successful. Unusually for the industry, they have collaborated on a marketing strategy, bringing in marketing advice. They have been able to do that themselves and have even won marketing awards for their work. Other companies are likely to need more help. Once the recommendations have been fleshed out and the report is final, everyone in the industry must pay attention to the detail.

5WH
Assistance will be needed to implement some of the recommendations. The Department of Trade and Industry has a role to play in the transfer of technology. Too many companies can fall by the wayside because they do not know how to diversify or how to begin to find the expertise. I do not know enough about how DTI industry funding works to know what assistance can be given, but I know that it will be given only if it raises the industry's standing. It is no good a company coming along and saying, "Gives us a handout—but we won't work with anybody else."
The report highlights the fact that in 1998 403 United Kingdom firms received small firms merit awards for research and technology—SMART awards—and only 12 were in the textile and clothing industry. We must discover whether that was because they did not apply, whether, as some companies say, the barriers are too fierce or whether there is a prejudice against the textile industry because it is considered to be an industry of the past. Because of the industry's regional nature a number of the recommendations will need local implementation. Government must play a part in ensuring that Departments, officials in regional government offices and regional development agencies get the message that we believe that the industry has a future, albeit a changing one.
There are too many stories of companies not necessarily getting the help to which they are entitled. I have only just heard from business link about one such company in my constituency, so I have not yet been able to investigate the report fully. It is D&E Textiles, a computer-aided cutting company—at the cutting edge, one might say—which is seeking to expand. It is an area that is entitled to receive regional selective assistance. Business link was giving the firm assistance to do that, but it was turned down. The company wants to expand, but it was told that this was not viable. It is viable. The firm is seeking to expand and it needs more equipment. It is now trying to get another type of grant and has been told that, because it was turned down the first time, it is clearly not eligible the second time. There may be reasons for that and I intend to investigate, but there are too many tales of insufficient enthusiasm for taking up the industry's needs, and that message must be taken down the line.
We know from companies that have taken steps themselves how the report's recommendations can be implemented. I have mentioned some. There was also an example in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). At the Knowledge 2000 conference a couple of weeks ago, addressed by the Prime Minister, delegates heard at first hand of a success story from Eric Newton of Heathcoats at Tiverton. He said that, by implementing the points in the report, he has maintained employment levels, trebled output and added value to his product.
The recommendations cover a range of areas, including capital investment, training and skills—the Department for Education and Employment may need to consider that. E-commerce and supply chain issues are also increasingly important, and not simply in relation to shopping on the internet. I understand that 80 per cent. of transactions would be business to business. Present mechanisms in the industry that bring suppliers and retailers together do so face to face. E-commerce should be able to speed up that process and
6WH
make the supply chains work better, as has happened in, for instance, the automobile industry. There is a role not only for the industry but for Government agencies to help in the development.
There is a great deal of work to do. The industry needs a major culture change. The report clearly says:
The textile and clothing industry recognises that ultimately its destiny is in its own hands.
Nevertheless, other organisations have an important role to play, including Government organisations, both nationally and regionally, academic organisations, trade associations, unions and others. The industry will call for additional financial assistance in some of those areas and, at the very least, we must ensure that sufficient information and assistance is available to enable companies to access any funds to which they are entitled.
Other recommendations in the report include the setting up of a fund specifically to assist innovation within the industry. As the SMART programme does not seem to have been very effective, perhaps the Department of Trade and Industry will consider imaginatively whether a special programme for the industry could be tied in with its innovation fund to assist with technological innovations.
One recommendation in the report that should be considered very seriously and carefully is the proposal that the Government should make funds available on a sectoral basis. People in the industry get upset when they see other industries apparently receiving funds that they cannot access. It is not clear to me that they receive those funds on any different basis but, at the very least, the matter should be examined. We hear many stories of how the industry in other European countries is able to access different taxation regimes and different methods of applying the rules. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say that it is difficult to make funds available on a sectoral basis outside the areas covered by current programmes, and I know that there are problems, but there must be methods by which we could be more innovative in ensuring that funds are available to help the industry to operate better and to move forward.
If all the recommendations are to be implemented, a culture change is necessary in the industry, with a partnership between all sectors. The industry has not always been good at that and we should examine the record of other countries that seem to have had more success to see how they have achieved it.
The textile and clothing industry can have an important future. There would be more of a public outcry if any other industry as large and as important to the economy as the textile industry were losing so many jobs and so quickly. The report lists many things that can be done and its production is greatly to the credit of the industry and the Government. It will encourage the industry to look forward to a period of social partnership in which those recommendations can be implemented. That will be painful for some companies that are unable to compete. They will suffer continuing job losses, which will be horrible for some of our constituents, many of whom have been made redundant from one firm after another and have had to trail around different companies. However, the future can be positive. We must acknowledge past job losses and do what we can to stem them, but we must also be positive and talk up the industry.

7WH
UNESCO has agreed that the area on the border of my constituency and that of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) should be a tentative site for world heritage status and that is likely to be confirmed within the next few years. It is based on the Derwent valley and the pioneer development of the textile factory system through harnessing water power from the River Derwent. The area was the cradle of the industrial revolution. Our tourism industry is now based as much on our industrial heritage and the magnificent mills built by the Arkwrights and the Strutts as on our beautiful countryside. It is wonderful to celebrate the innovation and brillance of those pioneers who started the textile industry.
However, that should be seen as not only our industrial heritage but an example of how progress can be made and how the textile and clothing industry can flourish into the future. It will not remain the same and there will be much pain along the way—indeed, that is happening now—but we must do what we can to ensure that the industry has a future and is not written off as a sunset industry. We should act on the report's recommendations and work together at all levels to enable the industry to have a future.
10.25 am
Mr. David Tredinnick: I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing this important debate. Many hon. Members wish to contribute, so I shall not detain the Chamber long.
In the previous Parliament, I spent the best part of a year in this Room—which was then the Grand Committee Room—as I was a member of the Committee that sat for three days a week discussing the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. In mapping the route through Kent, we examined the fate of endangered species. We considered whether deer could jump railway lines and whether mice could get beneath them. At the risk of being accused of flippancy, I suggest that the textile, hosiery and knitwear industry may be another endangered species. May I remind the Chamber that since the Government came to power, 25 per cent. of the industry has disappeared? That is a ghastly position. Last year, on behalf of workers in my constituency, I presented Parliament with a petition, which the Government did not even acknowledge. I raised the petition again at Question Time, when a Minister apologised for the Government's failure to give a response and promised to examine the matter, but nothing has happened, so my confidence in the Government's ability to solve or reduce the problem is not great.
That is one of the fundamental problems with the Government: they put too much emphasis on presentation and spin and not enough on substance. I spoke to the hon. Lady earlier and she suggested that I might be sceptical about the report. Indeed, I am. One Minister described it as a task force. A task force went to the Falklands, but I do not think that many ships will be sunk on the industry's behalf. Rover at Longbridge gets all the perks. I do not begrudge it that, as many workers in my constituency are employed by the motor
8WH
industry. However, the Government seem to have forgotten the hosiery and knitwear industry which, unlike Rover, does not get tax breaks or rate reductions, as I discovered from personal research.
The Government must show that they take the matter seriously in their repsonse to the report. We do not want words and spin or a Mandelson version of the matter: we want the Government to take action and tackle specific areas.
I shall not summarise the report, as I wish to give other hon. Members an opportunity to contribute. Indeed, I know how frustrating it is to attend these short debates and not be called to speak. In 1987, I made my maiden speech on the problems created by the importation of cheap Chinese underwear. That was not an easy speech to make, but it attracted the atttention of "Yesterday in Parliament": indeed, that thought crossed my mind before I made the speech.
A key issue in the report is the importation of cheap foreign clothing. The Government are not enforcing the law, but they should, as many such products are coming in illegally. I agree with Paul Gates of the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades—KFAT—who told me that it was essential to clamp down on illlegal imports. Many companies in my constituency that have gone to the wall as a result of cheap imports would not have done so if we had taken a more robust attitude. We should not ignore obvious solutions in our search for new strategic solutions.
The report does not cover dye works in great detail and does not examine the problems that they have had to put up with as a result of new environmental standards. Several dye works in my constituency have gone to the wall as a result of new regulations imposed by the National Rivers Authority. At least two of them have gone to the wall because Severn Trent Water would not invest in new equipment to get phosphorescent and other complex modern dyes out of the water. The Government should examine the water companies' treatment of such companies.
The hon. Lady referred to the importance of niche markets. Bodycotes is a wonderful company in my constituency making high-quality underwear. "More underwear," hon. Members may say. I am not obsessed with underwear, but we make a lot of it in Hinckley—that is a fact.
One of the first things that I did when I was selected as a candidate in 1986 was to go to Hinckley Makes It. It was amazing to see the factory girls modelling all the underwear made in my constituency. It was a great credit to them that they were prepared to go on the stage at the Concordia theatre once a year to show the town what was made there. It was a great show, which I commend to my colleagues.
Charlotte Atkins: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is offering a few tips to Marks and Spencer, which might become more profitable if it followed the example of the company that he has mentioned.
Mr. Tredinnick: I thank the hon. Lady for her support. The Marks and Spencer black hand has cast its shadow across my constituency too.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I am concerned that the complaints made to Marks and

9WH
Spencer at its annual general meeting came from a lady of about my age. I must say that, despite the fact that I purchase underwear from Marks and Spencer, it may not be a selling feature for women of my age to model underwear for that shop.
Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend is ever charming. However, we had better not get into an old-fashioned sexist style of debate, because with new Labour in the room that may not be appropriate, and I do not want to be drawn into speaking for too long.
Marks and Spencer is a major problem. Another problem that we have had in my constituency is that an Italian managing director stripped out and moved an old-established company, Pex, to Romania. I had to support the workers at a sit-in at the plant—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, that gives me some old Labour credentials, although I am a Tory. I do not want anyone to mistake my political allegiances, and especially not the Minister. I went down to the picket line because there was a lot of yarn in the factory. The Pex workers knew it was there, and they were owed some money. All credit to them that they held out against the bogus managing director, and protested against what he had done to their company. They got some recompense, and jolly good luck to them.
The Chancellor should help the industry; there should be support for high-tech machinery investment. Rate relief is also important, but there is much that companies can do for themselves. They say that God helps those who help themselves, and I sincerely believe that. Companies have much to learn from modern technology. Computer-aided design is coming down in cost and increasing in capability all the time. Companies must keep their eye on that. We now have e-commerce and the new development of selling on the internet, to which the hon. Lady alluded in her speech. I have said to many companies in my constituency, "For goodness sake, think about selling direct. You can get a website up and running for £500." That area is developing at such a pace—one's friends and one's children's friends are spending a lot of time on the internet—and it is a great way of adding to market sales without a lot of extra cost.
This is an important debate, and I welcome it. I hope that the Government will take some action. The great danger is that they will merely put a spin on the matter.
10.33 am
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I have relatively little claim to speak on behalf of the clothing and textiles industry, because in my constituency it is not large. None the less, during my first year in the House a small hat-making company closed there. It was not a traditional hatting company, but one that had invested in modern machinery; a high-tech hat producer. However, it still closed. That was a harbinger of harder times, because other companies in the textile and clothing industry in Luton have closed since then, although none of them was in my constituency.
Textiles are an example of a problem in manufacturing in general. I refer to manufacturing in general because I am a member of the all-party manufacturing group and want to promote the interests of manufacturing to ensure that Britain retains a substantial manufacturing sector. I do not have time to go into the arguments now, but manufacturing is vital to our future.
10WH
The problems in our manufacturing industries stem essentially from overseas competition. We have a substantial trade deficit in manufactured goods. In 1999, we had a £6 billion trade deficit in manufactured goods with the European Union alone, a substantial component of which was in textiles. The United Kingdom textiles and clothing industry is a special case even within the manufacturing trade deficit. Between 1990 and 1998, the growth rate of all United Kingdom industries was smaller than the overall economic growth rate, but at least industry in general grew by 1.9 per cent. However, the textile industry reduced by 2.5 per cent. each year during that period. Indeed, in 1998, textile output fell by 7.6 per cent., which contrasts with an increase of 2.3 per cent. in 1994. Those years are significant and are reflected in the trade statistics. There has been a massive deterioration in the trade balance in textiles and clothing.
I shall consider specifically the textile industry because it probably provides the best example of the two groups in Government statistics. Between 1994 and 1998, the total trade deficit in textiles increased by a staggering 35 per cent.; it increased by 53 per cent. with the EU alone, and by 25 per cent. with the rest of the world. Those statistics are very significant and show the effects of dramatic changes in the exchange rate.
Sterling appreciated by 27 per cent. relative to the deutschmark between 1995 and 1998. There was a 33 per cent. appreciation in the euro-ecu-sterling exchange rate between 1995 and this January. Textile and clothing manufacturers have to face such extremely difficult competition. Interestingly, the pound appreciated by only 4 per cent. against the dollar and by 17 per cent. against the yen in that period, and Japan has had its problems. It is significant that the trade balance has deteriorated more in relation to the EU than with the rest of the world. That is directly related to the differences in exchange rates. The exchange rate with Europe has deteriorated significantly more than that with the rest of the world.
Exports are constantly emphasised in the trade debate. Of course, exports are important. There was a surprising 2.8 per cent. increase in textile exports between 1995 and 1998. However, imports are the problem; they increased by 22 per cent. during those three years. Imports are seriously damaging domestic markets. The problem is one of price competition and exchange rates. The Government must address the exchange rate problem for the sake of the textile and clothing industries as much as for the rest of manufacturing. Indeed, the statistics show that those industries are much more sensitive to price competition than other areas of manufacturing.
We have a so-called strong pound. I do not like the term "strong"; I think that "inappropriately overvalued" is more appropriate. The pound has not changed very much compared to the dollar, but there is an incredibly shrinking euro, and the evidence hits us between the eyes. I am not a great enthusiast of the euro project, but I was astonished at the depreciation in the euro after its foundation. There will be a serious exchange rate problem for the foreseeable future, and the Government must address it.
As I have said, we had a £6 billion trade deficit with the EU last year, but a few years ago we were in balance. That must be a result of exchange rates. Following the

11WH
exit from the exchange rate mechanism, we witnessed a substantial fall in our exchange rate relative to that of the euro zone, and a dramatic improvement in trade and manufacturing. I return to the fact that even textile production expanded in 1993–94, although it later fell catastrophically.
Will the Minister ask his colleagues, including his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, to examine the exchange rate problem? It is serious, and cannot be solved without addressing the macroeconomic difficulties facing the industry. This is a fine report on national strategy, but it does not draw sufficient attention to the exchange rate problem or to the macroeconomic problem. I hope that the Government will look at those matters in the near future.
10.40 am
Mr. Phil Woolas: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing this debate. I also congratulate the authors of the report. This strategy document on the United Kingdom textile and clothing industry is a consultation document, and I am sure that the contents of this debate will be fed into that consultation.
I congratulate the authors on producing an example of social partnership working at its best. It involves employers from across the sector, as well as the trade unions. We should thank the three trade unions involved for their positive and progressive input into this debate. The secretariat of the report is the Department of Trade and Industry. We should not be too critical of the DTI, but recognise its important leadership role. However—[Laughter.] I shall come to the howevers in a moment. I have a few brief points to make.
Many myths surround the industry, and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley highlighted a few of them. However, she was wrong in one crucial historical respect. The cradle of the industrial revolution was not Derbyshire but Oldham, where the textile industry was very important. That industry has declined over not only the past three years but the past 100 years, with the shift to overseas production.
One of the myths being perpetuated is that overseas competitors have the advantage over us only because of unit labour costs. That is not so. There is a disparity in labour costs across the world, but some of the highest investment value, the best technology and the best matching of design with knowledge of markets and production techniques comes from what we patronisingly call the third world. In fact, there is a shift of production from India to Mauritius, just as there is from the United Kingdom to Morocco. This is a global industry, and if we base our strategy on the belief that our only disadvantage is labour cost, we cannot succeed. We cannot dismiss labour costs as an issue, but nobody should base a strategy on that alone. Thankfully, this document does not do so, and marks a turning point in that respect.
The second problem in the industry, which relates to the supply chain, is outlined on pages 20 to 22 of the report. The supply chain in this country is upside down.
12WH
Our manufacturers do not have customer knowledge, market research skills or the ability to match design and customer demand. That knowledge lies in the retail sector, and the retailers wield the big stick in the United Kingdom. I refer especially to Marks and Spencer. There is no doubt that the UK industry requires Marks and Spencer to succeed, because 16 per cent. of the retail industry goes through it.
M&S has traditionally been criticised for reducing its UK supplies, although it should get some credit, because no one has focused on British Home Stores and other companies that use nothing like the same amount from UK sources. Nevertheless, M&S carries the most clout and it does not and has not worked in partnership with manufacturing suppliers. It has used its market position to dominate them, so at the stroke of a buyer's pen or a telephone call to Morocco, it can move production, and hundreds of UK workers lose their jobs.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I underline the strength and power of my hon. Friend's case by saying that, in my constituency, three factories are closing as a result of such decisions.
Mr. Woolas: That is a sadly familiar story and I look to my right hon. Friend the Minister to respond to it. There is a section in the document on M&S.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley mentioned the lack of take-up of regional selective assistance. The document states that there has been a lack of take-up of RSA by textile and clothing companies and that there is anecdotal evidence that some officials administering RSA are not convinced of the merit of supporting investments in the sector. That is within my right hon. Friend's power to change.
On public procurement, the document recommends a partnership, and we should consider it. We do not need unfair competition; what is needed is a partnership of suppliers and purchasers to take advantage of UK products and our excellent skills in a sector in which we are world leaders.
10.46 am
Charlotte Atkins: I, too, welcome the national strategy for the United Kingdom textile and clothing industry. The consultation document has much to offer the industry. Most importantly, it recognises that the industry holds its destiny in its own hands. Although trade associations, unions, universities, colleges and the Government have vital roles to play, the industry realises that to survive it must make itself globally competitive.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) said, the textile and clothing industry is still a significant employer. However, the industry is clearly approaching a watershed and there is a danger that further contraction will lead to the loss of a critical mass. The industry must and will take initiatives to put it on a more competitive footing, but that must be underpinned by more Government support if the industry is to survive this critical period of adjustment.
My constituency is typical of many textile industry areas. Most of its textile and clothing firms are suffering badly from the strength of the pound, although none

13WH
would blame the pound for all their ills. For example, Leek Dyeing and Finishing, which has been operating successfully for 16 years, last week announced that it is going into receivership. The combination of having to move premises, the lost orders resulting from a flood, and the strength of the pound make its products uncompetitive compared with imports from the far east. That was enough to push it under. However, it had invested in good equipment and premises, so with luck the business will be sold as a going concern, with the loss of only a few jobs.
Those firms that are busy have played to their strengths. Marling of Leek, with nearly 200 employees, is the biggest supplier of webbing in Europe. It makes safety harnesses, straps to secure lorry loads, climbing equipment and so on. It sells its webbing products at half the price that they could command a year and a half ago. At the same time, the price of yarn has risen. It is being stung at both ends. The firm has protected itself by becoming part of a bigger group, through which it markets its products. The company also recognises the value of investing in its work force. Under the Japanese-style Kaizen system, employees are rewarded for their ideas. If their innovations are introduced into the production system, the employee reaps some of the benefits. Thus, staff are empowered to involve themselves in the productivity and long-term viability of the company.
Selectus in Biddulph employs 230 people. It used to control the Velcro brand name in the UK, but now merely manufactures Velcro under contract from the company. Instead, Selectus is concentrating on its traditional ribbons business. Traditional outlets for its products have declined, so it has to find new outlets and ways of adding value to its output. As a Marks and Spencer accredited company, it still supplies stores, but instead of clothing, it is focusing on good design for packaging. As the far east catches up on design and quality, Selectus sees its future in developing new products and keeping ahead of the game through constant innovation and attention to the demands of the market and its customers. Like other companies, it has been hit by the strength of the pound. However, it protects its production volume by trading in foreign currencies. That may hit short-term profitability, but surviving this transitional period will protect its markets.
What does the experience of such local companies tell us about the future of the textile industry? In most areas of the textile industry, constant investment is required to remain internationally competitive. Such investment not only allows manufacturers to produce goods at lower unit costs but enables them to innovate through the development of new products and new processing techniques, so it is vital that the industry is fully aware of the funding streams to support innovation. The Department of Trade and Industry has an important role in ensuring that the industry is properly informed.
The UK textiles and clothing industry needs strong and relevant skills to compete successfully. However, there is a widely held perception that the industry is in decline—that it is low-tech, and does not offer good career prospects or good pay. If companies are to be successful, they must recognise training as an investment, rather than a cost. My local further education college in Leek is demonstrating the way
14WH
forward. It has developed a high-tech textile design centre offering training, design packages, and technology to improve cutting techniques and overall efficiency and effectiveness. As many FE colleges are suffering the effects of long-term underfunding, financial backing is necessary to ensure the viability of such centres. If textile companies are to attract the bright recruits that are needed to develop the industry, there is no alternative to projecting a new image of the industry within schools and colleges. That must be backed by the relevant local skills councils and by regional development agencies.
There is a small window of opportunity to empower and invest in the industry. The industry has a bright future, but only if we face the challenges ahead and create the necessary partnerships to succeed. The creation of a national strategy for the UK textile and clothing industry is an excellent start.
10.53 am
Mr. Terry Rooney: It is a pleasure to speak again in an Adjournment debate on the textile industry. It is the sixth such debate since I have been a Member of Parliament, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing it.
I was amused by the comments of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who referred to tax relief, rate relief, financial assistance and support, sit-ins and picket lines. If we had heard that during the first 10 years that he was in Parliament, the industry might be more grateful.
As I come from Bradford, I am steeped in the textile industry. I must have lanolin in my skin. My family has given 90-odd years' service to the textile industry and, sadly, suffered 25 redundancies. My family's history is the history of the textile industry. There have been some famous names in Bradford, but some of them have gone. Dawson, Pringle, Hields, Parkland, Listers, Woolcombers, Salts and Illingworth Morris were giants of the textile industry, but they are no longer, for reasons that are many and varied.
The textile industry is worth £27 billion, but 40,000 jobs have been lost in the past 12 months. That sounds bad, and it is, but in the 1981 recession 50,000 textile jobs were lost in West Yorkshire alone. That recession ripped the heart out of the industry, which reeled for a long time. Over the decades, the industry had many knockbacks and troughs but, unfortunately, very few peaks. Governments have had a role in all that. If at certain times in the past three or four decades the textile industry had been given any support at all, it would not be in the mess that it is in now.
A great deal has been said about support overseas. It is true that the money that is still being poured into the textile industry in Germany, Belgium and Italy has a direct impact on what is happening in this country. In Germany and Belgium, money is funnelled in through regional and state governments. Perhaps there is a lesson for us there. If we had elected regional assemblies, we might be able to indulge in the same practice. In Italy, support has gone primarily to the industry's design and marketing side, which is a major weakness of the British industry. It can make superb products but its design and marketing have never been what they should be.

15WH
The textile industry is not looking for handouts. It wants fairness, not favours; but, in fairness to it, the Government delivered body blows to it in the 1990s. Being a low-paid industry, it has always mirrored closely the assisted area status map and the objective 2 map. In the mid-1990s, large areas of the industry were removed from the objective 2 map. In 1993, assisted area status was removed from Bradford and given to Hastings, a decision that only compounded the felony. The industry does not want the Government to tie one hand behind its back. However, by way of a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister, I must say that Bradford is delighted to be on the assisted areas map once again. It will put that to good use.
In addition to losing assisted area status and being removed from the objective 2 map, there was the fiasco of the sell-out by the previous Government on the multifibre agreement. That was another body blow to the wool industry in particular. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who concluded the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade in 1994, famously sold out the textile industry to obtain a deal on agriculture by signing an agreement that meant that British textile exports to the United States started with a 37 per cent. tariff, which decreased by 1 per cent. each year for 10 years. So when it is next reviewed in 2004, there will still be a 27 per cent. tariff—and these are supposed to be two free-trade nations. It is a joke.
The industry is wondering what to do next. Only this week the Government announced that they would give BAe £500 million. Previously they gave money to Jaguar, Rover and Ford. What the textile industry wants first and foremost is political support from around the world. Secondly, it wants support for its design and marketing sector. Thirdly, it needs support for trade fairs and other operations abroad. The industry needs to get its own act together. Last November, I visited the trade high commission in New York. I was told that last year its trade office received only 192 inquiries from the United Kingdom about access to the biggest market in the world. I find that frightening.
Regional development agencies have a role. An economic package is being put together in Yorkshire to identify deficiencies in the industry and help to reverse them. Much is said about the training requirements of the work force, but the greatest training requirement in the textile industry is, frankly, for management, in order to provide more foresight into where markets are and how to deliver them.
10.59 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: In the northwest, 60,000 jobs are still dependent on the textile industry. I come from Bolton, which is synonymous with textiles, as both Crompton and Arkwright lived, worked and invented in the town. There are now three textile industries in the north-west. Everybody knows about the traditional cotton industry and there is also the clothing sector, on which 500 companies in the Greater Manchester area alone are dependent. There is also a growing third sector, called the technical textiles sector, about which I want to be upbeat.
16WH
The European market for technical textiles is around 21 per cent. of the entire textile market and it is growing at 5 per cent. per annum. That is true all over the world. The technical textile sector needs investment, and I plead with the Minister to support it. Traditional industrial textiles represent 43 per cent. of the sector; transportation, including automotive uses, 23 per cent.; civil engineering textiles, 10 per cent.; medical textiles, 10 per cent,; and protective clothing, 2 per cent.
The north-west is probably the UK centre of the industry. The aerospace industry is concentrated in the north-west. It uses many lightweight materials, including carbon, aramid and glass-fibre reinforced composites, which are all structured using textiles produced in the north-west. Some of our oldest companies—such as Andrews Textile Industries of Bury, which started out making laundry blankets in the previous century are now some of the world leaders in the sector. That company now makes filtration fabrics, also a growing market. Medical textiles are also important. Smith and Nephew, Johnson and Johnson, Setons and Vernon Carus are all leading health care companies, relying more and more on the development of technical textiles in the medical context.
It may surprise right hon. and hon. Members to know that the modern motor car contains 20 per cent. by weight of textiles. It is a growing feature of the automotive industry, important for lightness, fuel consumption and so forth. That all shows how many leading players there are in this growing sector in the north-west.
I also wish to be upbeat about the clothing manufacturing sector. Indeed, the largest and most modern knitting facility in the UK is in Bolton, my home town. It is called Swordward and it manufactures football strip, using the most modern technology anywhere in the world. It satisfies a performance and fashion-conscious market that changes not only between seasons but, as shown by top clubs such as Manchester United, mid-season.
In Yorkshire, the woollen industry has got its act together and started a centre of excellence based in Huddersfield. I am pleased to announce this morning that the cotton industry in the north-west has also got its act together and on 1 March this year, at Bolton institute in my constituency, a centre of excellence was created by Professor Dick Horrocks, dean of technology. It involves many companies and organisations throughout the north-west. It has a business plan and needs more than £141,000 to see it through the first two years of the pilot project. So far it has raised £71,000. I look at the Minister and ask for help with the pilot project. It hopes to keep going beyond the initial two-year pilot stage. It will provide a great impetus to developing the north-west textile industry. My congratulations go to the Bolton institute, to Professor Dick Horrocks and to all the people, including the unions, who played a role in establishing that centre of excellence.
I would have liked to have said much more, but I know that time is short.
11.4 am
Mr. Michael Moore: We have had an important and timely debate this morning. Some hon. Members have tried to

17WH
catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and some have succeeded and kept their comments brief, which shows how important our debate is and how many different interests there are around the country. I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary clothing and textiles group. I should also like to highlight the importance of the document that we are discussing this morning.
Textiles are very important in the area that I represent, but the sector has been badly bruised over the past couple of years. Thousands of jobs have been lost at household names like Pringle, Laidlaw and Fairgrieve and at many other smaller operators. My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) contain three of the five travel-to-work areas in the Scottish borders. They feature in the top 10 travel-to-work areas in the UK in terms of dependency on the textile industry. We therefore keep a careful eye on the sector.
Few industries know the blast of global competition quite like textiles, whether it is importing yarn, competing with imported goods or exporting the finished goods around the world. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley pointed out, the report recognises that ultimately the industry's destiny lies in its own hands and the authors do
not seek to protect the domestic industry from the winds of change.
Those comments would find an echo in the Scottish borders. Changing ownership is one aspect of the current world situation that causes a great deal of concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire recently visited Hong Kong where he met the Fang brothers, who have just taken over Pringle, one of the most significant employers in Hawick and the Scottish borders. That is a substantial change of ownership from the previous ownership under Dawson international. The announcement has generated a great deal of optimism, but until we know the final details, there is still uncertainty. I hope that the Government will make it their job to monitor how ownership of the whole sector is changing in a fast-paced world.
I should like to focus briefly on the cashmere industry, which is particularly significant to the area I represent, to the Scottish economy and, indeed, to the UK economy as a whole. A constant theme throughout this morning's debate has been the success of the textiles industry, and I wish to echo that. Cashmere is a good example: it is a huge export earner and one of the high value niche products highlighted by the report. A year ago the cashmere sector was in the middle of the so-called banana war, with thousands of jobs at risk from the unilateral action of the United States Government on tariffs. We got through that. There were difficult times but most businesses have recovered.
One key recommendation in the report that will be welcomed throughout the area is the need for a level playing field. Manufacturers in my part of the world desire that above all else. I draw specific attention to the recommendation that
priorities for trade liberalisation should be prepared by the leading trade associations…Effective mechanisms should be established for ensuring an ongoing dialogue between trade officials and industry representatives to agree how these priorities should be pursued.
18WH
There is a great deal of anxiety in the cashmere sector about the multi-fibre arrangement. Local cashmere producers believed that cashmere products would see the end of quotas only at the final stage of the multi-fibre arrangement in January 2005. They have become extremely alarmed about the possibility that quotas might end as soon as 1 January 2002. With businesses planning investment and product development over a long period, that shortened time scale would be extremely damaging for the sector. Mr. George Peden, the chairman of the Scottish Cashmere Association, has been in correspondence with the Department and was told on 22 February that there can be
no cast iron guarantee on the final exclusion of cashmere from the stage three re-integration list.
In other words, cashmere could be back in full competition as soon as 2002.
Could the Minister confirm that that is the case or perhaps give us a basis for optimism? The letter acknowledged that the Department would fight a hard case to ensure that the United Kingdom strongly opposes any proposal that category 5—cashmere jerseys—should be one of the categories that are reintegrated. What steps are the Commission and the DTI taking to ensure that reintegration, and therefore the lifting of quota limits, does not take place until 2005?
The most important thing that the Government can bring to the debate is a level playing field, not least with a prospect of an end to quotas at some point. We must be confident that the policing of the World Trade Organisation rules will be rigorous. As has already been said, we must remember that China has not always been the best at sticking to existing rules.
Uncertainty is a killer for business. Cashmere survived the massive blight of the banana war. It cannot afford the uncertainty created by the prospect of the early lifting of quotas. I hope that the Minister will not only pay tribute to the sector and recognise its strengths, but take steps to remove that uncertainty.
11.10 am
Mrs. Angela Browning: I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing this debate. Just over a year ago, on 27 January 1999, I introduced a one-and-a-half-hour Adjournment debate on the textile industry on the Floor of the House. Many of the concerns that hon. Members expressed then have been exacerbated by the number of factory closures in the UK textile industry and by the trend to move offshore, which continues apace. We are all worried about that.
It is interesting to note that not only retailers are now purchasing abroad; the manufacturers who supply those retailers, who are often in partnership with their key retailing customers, are relocating as part of a bilateral agreement between two sectors and two companies. That is worrying. It is not simply a matter of UK retailers shopping the world, as they are entitled to do; there seems to be a trend towards moving the manufacturing source in conjunction with the retailer. Marks and Spencer, which has been mentioned many times this morning, is a classic example of that.
In the debate on 27 January 1999, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), told me:

19WH
the bottom is not falling out of the industry. We are stabilising the industry.—[Official Report, 27 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 277.]
Clearly that is not the case. The industry has not stabilised. We should welcome any advance information that the Minister can give us ahead of the Government's response to this important and timely document about the role that they can play in ensuring the industry's stability, a year on.
I want to draw hon. Members' attention to one or two issues raised in the document, which makes it clear that this is not a complacent industry. The industry is not sitting back at a time of crisis for many of those concerned, saying that somebody must do something. It is engaged—hence the document—with others in looking for solutions and does not look to others to solve the problems. The hon. Member for Amber Valley and others have flagged up areas such as innovation and marketing, in which the industry has recognised that it has a role to play. Perhaps the Minister will give us an idea of the Government's thinking on how they can contribute, particularly in relation to the World Trade Organisation talks.
One section of the document refers to exports going to markets outside the European Union. It says that such markets often face tariff barriers, but duties and other barriers remain high in many markets, including in the south American countries, which have been opened up, the Indian sub-continent and elsewhere in Asia. The World Trade Organisation must be involved in that. In the debate on the Floor of the House, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that, despite the debacle in Seattle, the Government would be a key player in the EU to bring the talks back on course and make progress.
It was interesting to note that the industry wants the Government to help to initiate bilateral agreements. Some time ago, I suggested to the Minister—I cannot remember whether the suggestion took the form of a parliamentary question or a letter—that the Government could advance bilateral agreements not only in this but in other sectors. I received a rather negative response. He must realise that we cannot sit back and wait until the American elections have finished and World Trade Organisation talks are cranked up again; the Government must take the initiative. As the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) said, the problem with cashmere, which was debated in January of last year, was resolved through a Government initiative. Although cashmere is important, it is not unique in the textile industry, and others would like to see progress made through such Government input. I hope that the Minister can reassure us in that regard.
The report raises other issues that affect the Government, including regulation, which is dealt with in paragraph 9.4. All manufacturing sectors are subject to additional regulatory burdens. According to the British Chambers of Commerce, regulations cost business nearly £10 billion in just under three years and recurring costs amount to £2.4 billion a year. However, there are further costs that will affect this sector. I have received representations about one particular cost, which prompted me to debate the textile industry on the
20WH
Floor of the House last year. John Heathcoat, a successful company in my constituency, is extremely concerned, as are others, about the proposed climate change tax to which it will be subject. There are other, smaller manufacturers in my constituency, but John Heathcoat is a global player.
Parliament has been lobbied many times in respect of that tax, and the Government have modified the Chancellor's original formula. However, it is clear that, having invested capital in more energy-efficient plant, the industry will not reap the benefit because the formula will impose additional costs through the tax. I flag up the matter because clothing manufacturers such as John Heathcoat, which incorporates a dyeing facility, use a lot of energy. Energy is a significant component of manufacturing costs. Responsible companies that have invested money in consuming energy in as lean and efficient a manner as possible deserve that the Government rethink the climate change tax, particularly now, when the industry is under great pressure.
The document refers to a disparity in how regulation is implemented in the UK and in other European Union countries. The Dutch have implemented their version of the tax in a flexible way, so that their core industries, which are high energy users, are not damaged. The Dutch are not unique. We all accept that the environment is an important component in considering costs and raising taxes. None the less, it is extraordinary to note that, having reached our Kyoto target many years ahead of the target date, the Government intend to place additional punitive burdens on industries. Those industries are seeking the Government's help and support, and many of them can demonstrate that they have met their environmental responsibilities.
The Minister should not be complacent about paragraph 9.4 of the document, which identifies the burden of regulatory costs, or about the fact that the UK implements them disproportionately. It refers to the impact assessment—which is usually carried out before the implementation of secondary legislation—in terms of the cost to business, and suggests that it has resulted in legislation being modified. Can the Minister say where the impact assessment has taken into account the cost to business and cite specific examples of how the sector has been assisted by that?
The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) was consistent with the representations that he has made on behalf of the industry throughout his parliamentary career. Having not been in the House when he made his maiden speech, I was somewhat surprised to discover that it was on the subject of Chinese underwear. No doubt that was an important threat to the UK market at the time.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley on securing the debate. All hon. Members have spoken with great knowledge and clarity.
11.21 am
The Minister of State for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on giving us the opportunity to debate the industry again. We have had such debates on many occasions. I remind hon. Members that had it not been for a meeting in November 1998 between

21WH
representatives of the industry and the then Minister responsible, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), the debate would not be taking place against the background of the report.
Some of the comments of Conservative Members were a bit rich, given that during their 18 years in power they did nothing for the industry. In respect of the contribution of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), if there had been a strategy for wiring up the industry, e-commerce and other information technology equipment could easily have been used. As it is, it is probably one of the worst sectors in terms of the development of communications and information technology systems. He was right to say that e-commerce and business to business communication are vital. The industry will find progress difficult, because the foundation was not laid in the past, but we are determined to ensure that it takes place.
The underlying theme of the debate was that partnership and consensus are emerging against the background of the report, which is a well-informed piece of work. That is pleasing, and is a far cry from the days of adversarial industrial relations. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred to paragraph 9.4 of the report. That paragraph also states:
An example of good practice in this area was the introduction of the National Minimum Wage.
That is telling in respect of the progress that the industry has made in developing on a consensual basis. If a little consensus had emerged in previous years, when Governments of her party were in power, the industry's structural weaknesses could have been addressed more effectively.
I shall begin by clarifying the status of the document. It is currently being circulated in draft form as a consultation document. It contains the initial views of the textile and clothing strategy group, which has circulated it in order to seek the views of a wide range of interested parties who could be affected. So far, about 40 reponses have been received from individuals, companies, university representative bodies and other interested parties. I understand that the textile and clothing strategy group intends to revise and amend the report in the light of those comments, and will publish the final version later in the spring.
As the group is still at the consultation stage, it would not be wise for me to give a detailed response now, but I can give an assurance that Ministers from my Department will respond to the finalised recommendations. Indeed, we have kept in close contact with the group in the course of our work. As has been said, the DTI has been involved in the secretariat. All parties will welcome the professional job that it has done, for which I am grateful. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my hon. Friends the Ministers for Small Business and E-Commerce and for Competitiveness have all attended meetings of the group. They will meet the group again to discuss the recommendations once they have been finalised. That shows how seriously the DTI ministerial team takes the report.
The textile and clothing stategy group comprises representatives of a cross-section of those who have leading roles in the textile and clothing industry. It
22WH
represents a powerful parternship. Large and small manufacturers are represented on the group, as well as trade associations, universities, trade unions—whose positive role in relation to the report has been referred to today—retailers and DTI officials. The textile and clothing strategy group is an industry-led body; it is not a Government body, although DTI Ministers have actively encouraged the group's work and have provided it with a secretarial resource. I stress that the group is industry-led because, together with DTI colleagues, the industry must identify the issues that face it, and take the lead in addressing those issues. That does not mean that the Government do not have an important role to play.
To put the report aside for a moment, DTI Ministers have been impressed by the spirit of partnership displayed by the various participants—the industry, trade associations, retailers, unions and academics—in trying to resolve difficult problems. The report stated, as I have, that it would be premature to respond to individual recommendations, because they are currently only provisional, but I want to make some general observations against the background of the report.
I hope that industry will be receptive, and that bodies such as the regional development agencies, to which reference has been made, will be influenced. Those business-led boards, in English regions where the textile industry resides, have given serious consideration to that sector of the industry to ensure that it is part of the regional industrial strategy and wealth-creating base. Once the report is finalised between the various parties and the Government, hon. Members who have a vested interest should ensure that such concerns are factored into regional development agency strategies to maximum effect. Higher education, the development of regional selective assistance—in which RDAs have a major input—and the development of training and skills councils, for which RDAs have the major strategic responsibility, are relevant in that regard. Innovation is also relevant, and our policy on clusters of innovation will unfold during the next few weeks. The report can inform the debate on the development of economic strategies and wealth creation.
On cashmere and the multi-fibre agreement, we are in dialogue with the industry but a definitive position has not been reached. As the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) acknowledged, we are taking a robust approach. if there are interested parties in his constituency who want to raise the matter with my Department, we are more than happy to receive them. If he wants to contact me afterwards, I shall provide more detail.
In response to the comments made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, the World Trade Organisation set up the multi-fibre agreement, which was signed under the previous Administration. Its implementation is being discussed with regard to cashmere. The Government will take a strong brief on the matter.
I also agree with hon. Members who raised the issue of Marks and Spencer. It is crucial that the atmosphere of partnership created by this document be taken on board. M & S could be said to have been arrogant with the supply chain, instead of working in partnership to

23WH
promote development in a wider context, which might have prevented some of the damage that has been done to the industry. That is the moral of the story and—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. Time is up.

Bus Services (Vale of York)
11.30 am
Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to have secured this debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. Would hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly? We have business to discuss.
Miss McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Cook. As I was saying, I am delighted to have secured this debate on support for bus services in the Vale of York.
The Government paid lip service to improving public transport in their White Paper on the future of transport published about two years ago, entitled "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone". On page 40, the section dealing with more and better buses states:
Buses are already the workhorses of the public transport system and in many parts of the country they are the only form of public transport. Increasingly they will become the focus of an efficient transport system that gets people to where they want to be quickly and comfortably, without having to rely on cars. But people will not switch from the comfort of their cars to buses that are old, dirty, unreliable and slow. Too often, buses have been treated and seen as 'second class' transport. It doesn't have to be like this and is certainly not the case in many other European countries. As part of the New Deal for transport, we want better buses—clean, comfortable and convenient. Bus lanes and other priority measures will help to get buses running on time.
That was two years ago. One must contrast the lip service paid to the new deal for transport with what is happening on the ground in the Vale of York, where bus services are being reduced and, in some cases, withdrawn. I have corresponded with the Minister and his colleagues on these cases, and I hope that he will be able to respond in detail this morning.
The first case is the Haxby and Wigginton to York service. Routes 22 and 22A were withdrawn in spring 1999 and reinstated after constituents had expressed dismay and disappointment, and after I had expressed support for the services continuing. First York gave an assurance in February 1999 that, if the bus routes were changed again, a similar consultation exercise would take place. However, last summer, the bus routes were changed by First York without wide consultation. The services were withdrawn, having been reinstated.
There are now no direct services from Haxby and Wigginton to the hospital—which presents an acute problem for older people visiting relatives—or to the Theatre Royal or the station. That causes great inconvenience and, in some cases, distress to my constituents. First York made the point that journeys to the hospital and the theatre may be made via Fulford, which is an expanding community—as are Haxby and Wigginton. However, that service avoids the traffic problems and congestion on the Haxby road by bypassing it completely, which means that the journey time from Haxby is much greater, and in one case involves a change of buses. My constituents have expressed serious consternation about that.
I turn to the Linton-on-Ouse to York service. In January 2000, bus services from Linton to York were drastically reduced. The number of journeys to York was slashed from 13 a day to five, with only one bus running during the main part of the working day

25WH
between 7.30 am and 5.30 pm. Local residents are now even more dependent on access to a car to get into York from Linton. The cuts highlight the fact that the Government have failed to deliver on the pledge that they gave as recently as two years ago to improve public transport services in rural areas. Linton is especially important because it is a Royal Air Force base. One constituent wrote to me saying that he is about to serve a four-month term in Kuwait, leaving his wife without access to a car. Mothers with families and older people are having to turn more and more to cars or taxis instead of the bus services to which they, rightly, believe they are entitled.
First York made no excuses for the cuts and simply stated that the current service is uneconomical because there is not enough local demand. Thanks to North Yorkshire county council, one bus service was reinstated and departs from Linton-on-Ouse at 11.10.
In correspondence dated 28 February this year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), admitted that
there is need for improvement in local bus services in many areas.
He went on to promise to introduce measures to secure greater stability in bus services, primarily through quality partnerships, and to ensure that local authorities had more influence over the provision of public transport. He also promised to provide powers to enable local authorities to introduce bus quality contracts to give greater control over delivery of local bus services. Will the Minister verify which, if any, of the initiatives promised me by the Under-Secretary have been implemented in north Yorkshire?
I turn to the park-and-ride scheme at Rawcliffe. Despite severe opposition from residents—I also opposed it—the scheme was moved from the excellent, practical site at Clifton Moor to a greenbelt location. The opposition arose because it is one of the few remaining greenbelt sites at Rawcliffe. I said at the time that congestion on the A19 would increase, and there are record tailbacks beyond the roundabout at the Rawcliffe interchange with the bypass to York. At busy times, it can take 40 minutes for constituents to cross the roundabout. I and many hon. Members would like more park-and-ride schemes and more parking facilities to enable people to use the buses, but they should not be put in silly places where they cause increased congestion.
I pay tribute to North Yorkshire county council's wide consultation on public transport services. It demonstrates that the key to successful delivery of service in a rural area is through consultation, particularly with the parish councils, to ensure that the right bus arrives in the right place at the right time. North Yorkshire county council has an excellent record on spending public money responsibly. It is currently spending £1.68 million each year on public transport. Some of that fund has been allocated to an additional service from Linton-on-Ouse to York. The Government offered £1.38 million to North Yorkshire county council in April 1998. However, the spending guidelines were withheld by the Department until June 1998, so the money could not be spent on sustained initiatives within the financial year and the grant was returned and reallocated in 1999. One good reason for that was that it would have been impossible for North Yorkshire
26WH
county council to have spent more than 50 per cent. on services, which would have required continued funding in the following year. There would have been no continuity of service and it would have been unfair to my constituents to introduce a new service one year and to discontinue it the following year when they may have come to depend on it. North Yorkshire county council spends a lot of time consulting with local bodies and, primarily parish councils, to ensure that such grants are used in the best way possible. As a result, services to Easingwold in my constituency and Stokesley in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition have been extended, while services for Thirsk railway station have been developed greatly and the Bedale to Northallerton route has been greatly improved.
As a result of that efficiency, the Government have allocated to North Yorkshire county council a further grant over three years of £4.14 million at the rate of £1.38 million a year. In the financial year 2000–01 a community transport scheme will be developed in the Wixley area of the Vale of York, which is most welcome.
Consultation does pay, but I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the rural bus fund brings less to rural bus services than the amount that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Reigons takes away from shire counties' transport budgets. I ask the Minister and the Government to extend the rural bus grant to community transport schemes, which would help the disabled, the elderly, volunteers and local residents, especially in rural areas. I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to encourage the provision of bus services in rural areas, particularly those from Vale of York to the urban parts of York, some of which fall within my constituency.
City of York council gave a disappointing response to the reduction of services from Haxby to Wigginton. No alterations have been made to the reduced service and there are no plans to use any part of the council's budget to reinstate the service. Minor alterations are being made to ensure that existing services are more efficient during peak traffic congestion. I wish to put on record my disappointment at City of York council's poor reaction to the reduced service.
Will the Minister consider investment in vehicles through the introduction of a bus grant? Rural bus usage is not yet high enough to encourage operators to invest in high quality vehicles. Services provided in rural urban areas contrast hugely and action is required to enable the quality of service in rural areas to keep pace with developments in urban areas. Will the Government see fit to make a bus grant available to bus operators who provide rural services? That would ensure that rural services kept pace with those expanding in urban areas.
I invite the Government to take other measures to improve bus services and to encourge greater use of buses by passengers—for example, by maintaining or perhaps increasing fuel duty rebate or by making community transport schemes eligible for such rebates. Rural bus grants could also be used to support existing services rather than just new schemes. It would be sensible to use the money to support existing services.
In conclusion, the Government are all promises and no delivery; all mouth and no action. Far from their improving public transport prior to the introduction of

27WH
congestion and workplace charging, services in the Vale of York are being withdrawn, run down and reduced. If the Government are serious about delivering better bus services and a more integrated transport system, they must address the real problem of declining bus use. Through-ticketing and multi-journey tickets would help, as would greater integration with rail services or the prospect of a rural transport grant to integrate bus and rail services.
The Vale of York has a highly developed rail connection service—through Thirsk, to Northallerton and York, by the east-coast and cross-pennine routes. It would make great sense for passengers to interconnect between buses and railways. Denmark provides the model: with one ticket, people can travel for an hour on buses, or electric or ordinary trains. We should be working to achieve that in this country. Motorists face higher punitive fuel taxes and vehicle excise duty, but only a small part of such moneys is reinvested in the roads or public transport. I urge the Government to put more money raised in that way into public transport to encourage motorists to leave their cars at home and take the bus. Indeed, my proposal is just the ticket to get people to do that. I hope that the Under-Secretary will reassure my constituents that there will be a better bus service in the Vale of York in future.
11.45 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. Chris Mullin): The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) raised an important matter and made several sensible suggestions. However, she was rather cheeky: no one would guess from her speech that investment in rural bus services is at its highest level for many years. I shall do my best to address her points and shall say a word or two about the Government's overall policy.
We accept the importance of supporting public transport in rural areas. In the Budget of March 1998, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced an additional £50 million a year to increase accessibility and mobility in the countryside. England's share was £41.7 million, of which £32.5 million was allocated to local authorities to support new rural bus services—that is the rural bus subsidy grant to which the hon. Lady referred. The allocation was based on the size of the rural population and the number of people living in settlements with a population of 3,000 or lower.
Benefits of that new money are already becoming apparent. A careful study of the hon. Lady's speech would reveal that she referred to some of those benefits. In 1998–99, the first year of the scheme, 1,800 new or improved services were introduced nationally. The Government have recently announced that the rural bus subsidy grant will continue beyond 2000–01 for a further three years at its current level at least. As a result, a further £100 million will be available to improve rural bus services.
The grant is for local scheduled services. Funds have also been set aside for the rural bus challenge competition, aimed at encouraging innovative and cost-effective bus-related schemes that provide and promote new rural transport ideas. Following the 1999 Budget,
28WH
the challenge total was increased to a minimum of £15 million for at least the next two competitions. In the first two years of the competition, 104 schemes totalling about £28 million have been supported: 46 received a total of £11.4 million in 1998, and 58 a total of £16.8 million in 1999.
The remaining £4.2 million of the £32.5 million funding was allocated to the rural transport partnership, whose overall objective is to reduce social exclusion through enhanced accessibility to jobs and services. The Countryside Agency is responsible for that grant.
The rural bus challenge and the rural transport partnership funds can be used flexibly—for example to improve bus and rail integration. However, they are not intended to support rural rail services, for which funding is available through the rail passenger partnership funds.
In 1998–99, North Yorkshire county council received a rural bus subsidy grant of £1.38 million, and will receive a similar amount for each of the two subsequent years of the funding scheme. As the hon. Lady said, in 1998–99, the council spent only £326,000 of its grant, less than 25 per cent. of the available funding and a shortfall that has been highlighted on previous occasions. As the hon. Lady said, there were mitigating circumstances, but many authorities—unlike North Yorkshire county council—managed to spend their full allocation. We recognised all along that it might not be possible for every authority to spend its full allocation in the first year because of the need to consult and to seek the necessary powers to make the grant payments. However, North Yorkshire's underspend was the largest of any authority. In the circumstances, it is a bit rich of the hon. Lady to complain about the lack of Government support for buses in her constituency. However, that was in the past; we are concerned about the future so I shall not dwell on the matter.
The key issue, as the hon. Lady rightly says, is improvement in local bus services in consultation with rural communities. In the current year, the grant allocation for North Yorkshire is again £1.38 million, and I am pleased that the county council has confirmed that it will spend the full allocation this time round. Among the services to benefit will be those in the hon. Lady's constituency between York and Easingwold and Easingwold and Thirsk. I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomed that, although she did so rather quietly.
North Yorkshire county council was also successful in the rural bus challenge awards. In 1999 it received £43,200 for the Wixley area community transport project in the hon. Lady's constituency. The scheme provides for a fully accessible vehicle for community groups in Wixley and adjacent villages. I hope that the county council will learn from the success of other councils elsewhere by introducing future innovative schemes for rural bus challenge funding. The county council has not been as successful as other authorities in securing funds under the challenge scheme, which rewards innovation in providing rural transport.
I spoke about the rural transport partnership funds, five of which have been established in North Yorkshire since the introduction of the scheme by the Countryside Agency in 1998: the Craven, Ryedale, Selby and Richmond partnerships and the Harrogate and

29WH
Hambleton partnerships. Nine awards have so far been made, and a total of £145,000 has been put into rural transport partnerships and rural transport development funds in the county. The hon. Lady will note that that is in addition to the £2.8 million allocated to date in rural bus subsidy grant and rural bus challenge schemes in North Yorkshire. I stress that it is new money that was not available under the previous Government, of whom the hon. Lady was a supporter.
It may be of interest to the hon. Lady and her constituents that North Yorkshire county council has launched a new telephone inquiry service that provides information on public transport journeys starting or finishing in the county.
Miss McIntosh: the Minister is replying to the part of my speech that related to the North Yorkshire county council services. I called the debate in order to ask about the reduction of services in the city of York, especially those from Haxby and Wigginton to York and from Linton-on-Ouse. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions.
Mr. Mullin: By coincidence, I was coming to that matter. I shall start with Linton-on-Ouse. The majority of bus services outside London—85 per cent.—are commercially provided by private operators, and decisions on the extent and frequency of those services are primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of bus operators. The Linton-on-Ouse to York service was a commercial service, which the operator decided to withdraw. As the hon. Lady said, North Yorkshire county council arranged for replacement, subsidised services and will no doubt keep the situation under review. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), wrote to the hon. Lady about the matter; his letter was slightly more upbeat than she suggested, as she quoted from it rather selectively.
The hon. Lady referred to Haxby and Wigginton on Second Reading of the Transport Bill last December. These services are provided commercially—that is, without local authority subsidy—by First York, a subsidiary of the First Group plc. Following a review last September, the company altered services to the hospital and railway station so that they run directly
30WH
from Haxby village centre to York without deviation to the housing estate in the Wheatfield lane-Oaktree lane area that it served previously. I believe that the aim was to reduce journey times and encourage greater use of the service, in which respect, it has been successful. I understand that after discussions with residents, the company has again modified the route so that services come with a 300 m walking distance of the area. The local authority thinks that it would not be appropriate to subsidise a service to the area, given that there is a commercial service within reasonable walking distance.
Local authorities have a crucial role in delivering integrated local transport and in improving rural bus services. The Transport Bill now wending its way through the House will give local authorities, including North Yorkshire, the necessary tools to develop effective bus services. Among other things, the Bill introduces a national minimum standard for local authority concessionary fare schemes, guaranteeing all pensioners at least half fare on buses, or payment of not more than £5 a year for a pass—something that some of the hon. Lady's older constituents will welcome.
National targets have been agreed with the bus industry on reducing the age of the bus fleet and improving the reliability of services. We are also introducing new customer satisfaction surveys this year, and we shall publish the results. We have removed the previous Administration's freeze on the bus fuel duty rebate paid to bus operators. This rebate totals £100 million—more than it was two years ago—and it has helped the industry to keep fares down. Investment by the bus industry is £400 million a year, its highest for many years after some years of decline under the previous Administration.
We are committed to ensuring further improvements to bus services. The hon. Lady made some sensible suggestions. She also called for a bus grant. I am always a little nervous when Tory Members of Parliament start demanding more public spending because I know that their colleagues—and sometimes themselves—will jump up and down to talk about stealth taxes to raise the money. However, with that caveat in mind, I shall pass on the hon. Lady's suggestion. I have described our commitment to rural bus services, some of which have benefited the hon. Lady's constituency. We have a reasonably good story to tell, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me a chance to tell it.

Dry Stone Walls
11.57 am
Helen Jackson: This is the first time that I have had an Adjournment debate, and spoken in, the new Chamber at Westminster Hall. I am delighted to raise a subject dear to my heart. Thousands of people, including the Minister, share my love of the Pennine hills and other upland areas, where the landscape is traced with walls that climb up to the horizon, fringed with foxgloves in the spring and harebells in the summer.
The walls vary hugely. Some are white in limestone areas, others are grey gritstone in the southern Pennines and others are blue slate. Depending on which side the wind blows, lichen and mosses cover them. They were built with great skill many years ago, to mark a boundary, to clear stones from the fields, or to shelter new-born lambs and livestock and keep livestock safe and within a field's parameter. Some walls are very old—pre-Romano-British. As the Government acknowledge in their response to the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and the Regions, there is little data on exactly how old and dilapidated they are, but they are important. They are home not only to lichen, mosses and wild flowers, but to insects and many species of birds. Wrens and little owls nest in them. The centres of dry stone walls are very warm, so they are also home to hibernating reptiles. The great crested newt likes to spend the winter there. They are intersected by many other important stone features: big stone posts at gateways, step stiles, squeeze stiles and sheep creeps—an expression I did not know until I started to research the subject. I can enlighten hon. Members later if they are interested.
For years, dry stone walls have been mapped. They are used on Ordnance Survey maps for guidance. They are an integral feature of the upland countryside, and are loved by local farmers as well as walkers, riders and the urban population of the north of England who, in the words of the song, may be wageslaves on Mondays, but are free men on Sundays. At present, dry stone walls have no statutory protection. They are disappearing and crumbling at an alarming rate.
The House has been concerned about hedgerows for many years. A private Member's Bill is proceeding, but we are waiting for firm proposals from the Government on how to respond. Of all traditional field boundaries, dry stone walls are especially vulnerable because they have a market value. There is a price on their heads, so to speak. The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill receives its Second Reading on Monday, but the Government have missed the opportunity to include a clause about field boundaries and possible protection for dry stone walls.
The Countryside Commission survey of May 1995 showed that 50 per cent. of the 112,000 km of dry stone walls in the country are derelict or not stock-proofed. South Yorkshire has the fifth highest density of dry stone walls in the country: only 5.4 per cent. of its walls are classed A or B which means sound; 54 per cent. are classed C, which means semi-derelict and in need of restoration; and 44 per cent. are so derelict that they consist only of remnants.
Dry stone walls crumble for many reasons, some of them perfectly natural. Rabbits burrow around and underneath them so that they collapse. They need
32WH
constant repair. Road works often damage dry stone walls along the highways. They are often demolished to improve access for farmers to fields or even woodlands and forests. Bodies that should know better, such as the Forestry Commission and Severn Trent Water, have demolished walls to gain access to woodlands. Stones are also taken by members of the public, who go along in cars on Sundays and think that putting a few stones in the boot to improve their gardens and rockeries will not do much harm.
More worrying is the damage done when larger topping stones or copes are taken in a fairly systematic commercial way to garden centres, possibly all over the country, for their market value. Once a wall loses its heavy topping stone, deterioration is more rapid. They also crumble away, as farmers use other barriers such as electric fences or netting to keep livestock in. Most worryingly, in my area they are often simply sold—and that it why I have asked for this debate. One week a wall is there, the next week it has been taken away to be sold. The current cost of local stone is about £40 per tonne, and it is going up. That adds up to £6,200 for 100 m of stone wall. Hill farmers in my constituency have had a rough time over the BSE crisis and the general crisis in stock farming, and there is a huge temptation for them to sell off a wall to bridge a short-term crisis or financial problem.
Farmers are also put under pressure by planning rules which, in areas such as mine to the north of Sheffield, increasingly and rightly insist that any rebuilding ought to be done in local stone. The frequent transformation of farm buildings into residential accommodation puts up demand for local stone, which puts up the price—the vicious circle that puts pressure on the farmers. The increasingly common transfer of agricultural property to residential or holiday home use often means that walls lose their purpose as stock boundaries, fall into disrepair and crumble, because the people living there are not keeping sheep or cattle. As the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee said in the excellent, thorough inquiry that it carried out two years ago, the situation is worrying.
The answer is twofold—there should be incentives and disincentives. There must be not only an extension of the incentives to protect dry stone walls, but a clear disincentive, backed by legislation if possible, to prevent the removal of the whole or part of any dry stone wall without good reason. That is especially necessary in areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas and national parks.
The disincentives could include a requirement to get permission from a national park or a local authority, or consult a local conservation body. The Minister might consider that that work could come within the remit of the local access forums, when they are established. I am not calling for a rigid ban on the removal of the whole or part of any stone wall; such removals are part of the evolutionary process in the countryside. However, the key phrase in the new legislation, which is central to the Government's policy, is "good countryside management". The laissez-faire attitude cannot continue.
Moves by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to put countryside management and stewardship schemes at the heart of its grant regime are to be wholeheartedly welcomed, as is the recent

33WH
announcement that the money going into the schemes will be increased. Local farmers in my constituency often talk to me through the NFU, the Dry Stone Walling Association and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. They say that, although they are committed to restoring and maintaining walls on their land, the countryside stewardship grant schemes insist on their being part of an integrated countryside management structure, while farmers are often looking for something simpler. They want to be able to say, "I want a programme of restoration for the walls on my land, which would take three or four years, and some grant aid would help me do the work over one or two years." The proposal is supported by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Dry Stone Walling Association and was included in their briefings on the Countryside Bill and their response to the Select Committee's report. I understand that the Yorkshire dales, which I am sure the Minister knows well, runs a programme of countryside protection in which barns and walls are given extra European money. That category in the grant regime has stemmed the deterioration of the limestone walls and miles of walling have been renewed and restored. That is an example of how the grant regime can be improved.
I am discussing not just walls, but the traditional skill of walling and the people with that skill. The inhabitants of Dungworth in my constituency always know that walling is taking place when they hear the beautiful baritone voice of a farmer called Hector, who sings hymns as he mends walls.
In that context I pay tribute to the efforts of the Dry Stone Walling Association, which has pressed wallers' arguments strongly. I agree with the officers of that association that it is not good enough to allow grant schemes to go forward without any check on whether the work is being done by skilled or expert wallers. If it is not, walls will continue to crumble, which would not be good value for money.
As well as the wallers' skills, voluntary conservation groups play a key role. In another part of my constituency a volunteer group goes out on Sunday mornings under the guidance of a trained wailer to tidy up and strengthen walls around woodland areas. The volunteers learn a skill, increase the community's appreciation of the environment and improve the look of the woodlands and the strength of the walls.
If the House is serious about looking after the countryside in our overcrowded islands, action is needed. The public will not forgive us if we simply watch in the hope that our country's heritage remains. Without action, it will be too late. I urge the Minister to talk seriously to his colleagues. A major Bill is passing through the House with the protection of the countryside at its heart, and I support its principles. Today, I want to raise awareness of one small element of the countryside field boundaries, which are a crucial part of our upland countryside. The public and those who love the countryside would not forgive us if we missed this opportunity to prevent deterioration in dry stone walls, which will inevitably occur if we do not take steps to prevent it.
12.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield,
34WH
Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) has raised an important issue, and I thank her for initiating this debate with great distinction and charm. The way in which she presented her case demonstrated that she cares about this subject, but I have a small quibble. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), who has left the Chamber, advises me that newts are amphibians, not reptiles.
Helen Jackson: The Minister is of course correct. Frogs, toads and great crested newts are amphibians, but I am informed that reptiles such as the grass snake also enjoy hibernating in the central areas of dry stone walls, which provide warmth.
Mr. Mullin: I shall not follow my hon. Friend down that path, because I would quickly be out of my depth. As she probably knows, I am walking in four stages from Holy Island to the Lake district—a journey of about 250 miles, much of which passes through the Pennines. So far, I have reached Barnard castle. I passed many stone walls along the way and, as she said, they are in varying states of repair and neglect.
Since taking on this post, I have noticed that differing forms of boundary can excite many, often mixed emotions. Some people are keen to do away with boundaries such as the dreaded leylandii hedge, a subject on which we receive more letters than any other. However, there are other boundaries to which we want to give tender loving care, and dry stone walls fit firmly into that category.
My hon. Friend vividly described the various reasons why we want to save and nurture such features of the landscape, and said that they help to define the character of the countryside. There are often local differences in stone type and building techniques, and such visual variations are appreciated by passing ramblers in particular and the public in general. As she said, dry stone walls are important to a wide range of wildlife, and they remain functional. As well as controlling and sheltering livestock, they may help to prevent soil erosion and water run-off.
As has been said, dry stone walls are at risk. Although the countryside has never remained static, changes in recent decades have given rise to concern about the rate at which walls are disappearing. According to the countryside survey of 1990, there were about 86,000 km of dry walls in England—a dramatic decrease of about 15 per cent. in six, which was particularly serious in marginal upland andpastoral landscapes.
Helen Jackson: After this intervention, I shall let the Minister get on, but I want to emphasise a point that is relevant to my constituency and many others. Does he agree that there is a particular problem for countryside that abuts major urban conurbations?
Mr. Mullin: I am sure that that is right.
Only about 4 per cent. of walls were described as being in excellent condition. Where the stones of walls fall down, the wall can be put up again, but in the vicinity of some urban areas, the walls are disappearing. Some of the instant makeover gardening programmes may have a little to answer for in that respect. Against that background, my hon. Friend has called for the

35WH
Government to give statutory protection to walls, which the Select Committee recommended. As the figures suggest, much of our knowledge about dry stone walls is five or 10 years old. We are updating ourselves on the countryside survey 2000, which will provide reliable estimates on the number and condition of walls, and an improved base line for detecting changes to those features in future. We consider further legislation when the survey becomes available.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. As I am sure she will appreciate, we are not short of suggestions for additions to that Bill, or to nearly every major Bill. Someone, somewhere, at a slightly higher level than me, has to make the harsh decisons on what will be included. I regret that I cannot hold out any prospect that the matter will be dealt with in that Bill. We do not rule out the possibility of legislation, although the survey results will not be available until the end of the year, which would be too late for incorporation into the Bill.
My hon. Friend suggested that protection might come within the remit of the proposed local access forums. Those non-statutory bodies will have an important advisory role in helping to ensure that new opportunities for recreational access are implemented sensibly and sensitively on the ground. Their focus will be on promoting responsible public access to the countryside rather than on conservation. Although we must await the results of the survey before making final decisions on legislation, I note the general view among experts who gave evidence to the Select Committee inquiry—for instance, the Dry Stone Walling Association—that the biggest threat to walls was posed by neglect rather than deliberate destruction. I accept my hon. Friend's point about what happens in the vicinity of human habitation. No amount of legislation can deal effectively with walls falling into disrepair and becoming derelict. Sound management of walls is a long-term activity that requires the continued commitment and enthusiasm of land managers. It is a question of winning hearts and minds, which is best achieved through advice and incentives.
My hon. Friend mentioned the incentive schemes administrated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which offer funds for the restoration of stone walls in England. Under country stewardship, payments are available for major rebuilding if a wall has collapsed, become unstable, is in danger of collapse or has slumped—I have never thought of stone walls as slumping, but apparently they do—or is no longer stock-proof. To maintain the historic value of the walls, the scheme requires that the work should retain as much fabric as possible. Traditional materials, in keeping with existing walls, should be used. The source of all stone has to be identified and agreed. The stewardship scheme has led to the restoration of more than 1,000 km of stone wall since 1991. The trend is not entirely downhill.
Similar arrangements apply in environmentally sensitive areas, such as my hon. Friend's doorstep in the Pennine dales. MAFF will pay farmers up to 80 per cent. of the cost of repairing and maintaining dry stone walls. In the Pennine dales, 5.3 km of stone wall have so far been restored with funding from the scheme. That does not include work done on stock-proof walls, which must
36WH
be maintained as a requirement of the ESA scheme. My hon. Friend believes that more walls could be saved if there were a separate grant scheme that focused on maintaining and repairing walls and other field boundaries. That point was also raised in the Select Committee report. As our response indicated, experts have advised that the best value for money, and the most benefits for landscapes and biodiversity, will be achieved through an integrated approach to conservation. We do not consider it right to divert funding from existing agrienvironment schemes to separate grants for ad hoc boundary restoration.
Helen Jackson: The point made to me is a call not for the diversion of funds from agri-environment schemes, but for a simpler subsection within those schemes that would focus on walls and field boundaries.
Mr. Mullin: I thank my hon. Friend. I am sure that those who work on such matters will note that point.
Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that more than £1 billion would be available over the next seven years for countryside stewardship, environmentally sensitive areas, organic farming and farm woodland premium schemes. We hope that that will mean that more walls can be restored in future.
As my hon. Friend acknowledged, MAFF is not alone in supporting the active management of dry stone walls. National park authorities operate local grant schemes in recognition of the important contribution that walls make to natural beauty and heritage. For example, restoring walls is a high priority for the Peak district park authority, which restored 13,260 m of wall in the 10 years up to 1999, and has in recent years given grant aid for more than 10,000 m of wall a year. That is a good record. The North Yorkshire moors national park offers land managers 70 per cent. grants for the restoration and repair of dry stone walls. Since July 1997, more than 22 km of wall have been repaired under that scheme, at a total cost of about £109,000, and several jobs have been created.
That leads me to another point that has arisen during the debate. We have heard about the importance of ensuring that traditional wall-building skills are passed on to future generations. I am aware that there is a problem in some areas with a shortage of skilled labour able to carry out restoration work. Local intelligence suggests that, but for that, more Pennine wall could be restored. However, the training opportunities that are available should help to increase the pool of skilled workers. For example, Lantra—the national training organisation for industries that make a living, directly and indirectly, from the land has developed a series of courses on landscape boundaries within its environmental training portfolio, including units that specialise in dry stone walling skills. All Lantra's training courses can be counted towards national vocational qualifications. I pay tribute, as did my hon. Friend, to the part played by the Dry Stone Walling Association and voluntary bodies such as the National Trust and the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.
MAFF hopes to be able to provide help with training in the near future. The European Union's rural development regulation will provide aid for vocational

37WH
training for farmers and others involved in agricultural and forestry activities. Several priority areas have been identified, including countryside and environmental skills such as dry stone walling. MAFF is planning to make available a total of £22 million over seven years for its training scheme, subject to the European Commission's approval. It is a case of "watch this space".
My hon. Friend paid tribute to the key role played by voluntary groups. She may like to pass on to them the news about a new national grant scheme that helps local groups to investigate, explain and care for local landscapes, landmarks and traditions. The local heritage initiative launched in February is planned to run for 10 years at a cost of £45 million, and is expected to support about 300 projects each year. It is administered by the Countryside Agency, with funding from the heritage lottery fund and the Nationwide building society.
This has been a good debate about an important issue. Given what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the picture is not entirely bleak. A great deal of progress is being made, and we must ensure that that continues. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the subject.

Latin America
12.29 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: It is perhaps a sign of the times that a debate of such importance should be shuffled sideways to this parliamentary annexe. It may suit the Government, who do not seem to be as interested in—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that this annexe, as he calls it, is the House of Commons.
Mr. Wilkinson: I understand that; it is perhaps convenient for the Government, but it belittles the House as a whole. However, I hope that my brief remarks will be a useful postscript to the much fuller debate in the House of Lords on Latin American trade, admirably initiated by Baroness Hooper on 8 February, which itself complemented the debate on Latin America on 9 June 1999, led by Lord Montgomery, who has made such a notable contribution to the promotion of trade and good relations with Latin America. The loss to Parliament of his expertise and that of Lord Dundonald, the honorary consul for Chile, will be a sad side effect of the so-called reform of the other place.
As secretary of the British Latin American all-party group, officer of the Colombian and Chilean groups and a member of the Latin American Trade Advisory Group—as well as of Canning House for purely educational reasons—I have a personal but not a commercial interest in Latin America, which is strongly inspired by a love of Chile, the land of my wife's birth. I hope that the Minister will understand where I am coming from.
Distance and lack of contact deepen British business pre-conceptions of Latin America, often deterring many small companies from exporting which, with more knowledge and support, could find significant niche markets there. Big firms need less assistance to identify, analyse, develop, exploit and sustain export opportunities. Yet in Latin America, local understanding and personal contact are essential, and small and medium-sized enterprises need all the help that they can get.
A few major economies dominate the region, but even Brazil ranks 29th in a list of countries to which the United Kingdom exports, and Argentina 39th. Of the nations from which the United Kingdom imports, Brazil ranks 31st, Mexico 40th and Chile 44th. I know the great interest that the Minister for Trade takes in these matters from a meeting that we both attended on Brazil not long ago. Nevertheless, the potential is immense, not just for British investment. In this regard, the United Kingdom does well. I believe that we are the third biggest investor in the region, after the United States of America and Japan. However, potential exists for burgeoning British export trade in carefully selected markets.
The resurgence from recession of the Brazilian, Mexican, Chilean and Argentine economies is impressive. Bolivia has been a model of good economic managment. Bolivia and Peru offer more optimistic prospects than the other Andean community countries—Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela—but,

39WH
with rising oil prices and a resolute effort to tackle political and social difficulties, their time will come. Expert guidance to exporters to such markets is essential. I was pleased that the Department of Trade and Industry organised an excellent seminar on the Andean community, which I had the privilege of attending only a few days ago.
The formation of British Trade International as a consequence of the Wilson report, to bring together the trade promotional functions of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is laudable, but its benefits could be vitiated in Latin America. The idea of a single committee for the Americas in British Trade International may appear to be a grand rational strategy on an organogram, but if it subsumes the work of the Latin American Trade Advisory Group in a single in-house operation, I fear that the loss of LATAG's wide, practical business experience of Latin America's exceptionally diverse, sensitive and sophisticated markets would soon be deeply regretted by British exporters, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. For example, the chairman of the British Argentine chamber of commerce, Mr. Peter Edbrooke, wrote to me on 10 March stating:
In all its bilateral activities the—
British Argentine chamber of commerce—
works closely with a number of other bodies, prominent amongst which is the Latin American Trade Advisory Group … Bilateral relations with Argentina have developed and strengthened after the significant problems of 1982 in the South Atlantic. They nonetheless remain delicate. In this context. the BACC views with great concern recent considerations to abolish Area Advisory Groups.
We believe that such a move, in addition to considerably weakening Britain's resources and its effectiveness in its trade relations with Latin America would be interpreted by most Latin American countries, including Argentina, as a retrograde and even slightly insulting move.
I trust that you will able to make known and support our views.
The attitude of unjustifiable British condescension must always be vigorously resisted. Damage was done, if we are candid, to the United Kingdom's commercial relations with Chile by the British detention of Senator Pinochet. The Government failed to understand that General Pinochet secured as high a percentage of the popular vote—44 per cent.—in the plebiscite that caused him to relinquish power as the Prime Minister received in the 1997 general election. Chile has a sophisticated economy and is a stable democracy. It is not the cold war cockpit of the early 1970s.
I am pleased that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office went to President Lagos's recent inauguration. Ministerial visits are important and the Minister is diligent in making such visits, but they should be carefully focused. Perhaps too many Ministers have been to Cuba, which receives only £25 million of British exports a year, and not enough have been to Chile, which takes almost 10 times as much. The official visits to the United Kingdom of President Frei of Chile, President Menem of Argentina and President Cardoso of Brazil in recent years have opened doors to British exporters. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and
40WH
Industry should spend less time at European Union meetings and more time in Latin America and other global markets. Diplomatic missions in Latin America should be beefed up, not reduced, and where there are opportunities for British defence sales, the number of attaches, including service attaches, should be maintained, not diminished.
In the meantime, full opportunity should be taken of the reform of export promotion by Sir David Wright, head of British Trade International. He brings impeccable personal credentials to the task, not least from his long diplomatic experience in Japan—a tough market for British exporters if ever there were one. The key must be to build on the strengths of the Latin American Trade Advisory Group and Canning House. LATAG's committee of business people to provide strategic advice should still advise British Trade International on British exports and investment in Latin America. LATAG's secretariat is ideally qualified to maintain awareness of business opportunities in the region for small and medium-sized enterprises. LATAG's assistance with trade missions and seminars is' invaluable and its co-operation with trade associations and chambers of commerce is exceedingly effective. We must build on its strengths. Its location in Canning House offers the key.
Canning House is the centre for Latin America in London. It is a prestigious, internationally recognised centre for informed discussion and study of Latin American politics, business, literature and culture. It has the support of political bodies, finance, business, the British Government and the European Union. The benefits of merging the Latin American trade advisory group and Canning House have been compellingly spelt out in a memorandum of 21 February from Sally Unwin, chairman of Canning House, and Alexander Kennedy, who is chairman of LATAG. Hon. Members who participate in events organised by the British and Latin American parliamentary group will have gained a first-hand appreciation of the wonderful work done by Canning House in the annual parliamentary seminar that it organises for hon. Members and members of the House of Lords.
The memorandum of 21 February, from which I shall briefly quote, spells out the benefits of a merger. It states:
By merging the two entities, the delivery and cost effectiveness of the services now provided separately to UK businesses and to government can be improved, as well as providing a platform for their further development.
The single entity would reinforce the complementary link between the UK's cultural and trade interests in the region.
It would … address admirably one of the issues highlighted in the Wilson review, by resolving the confusion, in the UK and Latin America, over the relative functions and roles of the various private bodies and government departments working on overlapping aspects of the region.
The merged organisation would provide government and British Trade International with one stop access to specialist skills in trade promotion in Latin America.
It would constitute the only source of strategic, regional advice on Latin America to SME's.
It would concentrate the existing strengths and identity of LATAG and Canning House.
As I said at the beginning of my speech,
Canning House would provide specialist, regional, private sector input to the Americas Umbrella Group of British Trade International through LATAG.

41WH
Conversely, if LATAG were to be removed from Canning House, all opportunities for synergies and savings would be lost and Canning House would have to curtail, perhaps drastically, the scope of its existing activities and we should not underestimate its negative impact in the region.
The memorandum concluded:
British Trade International is embarked upon a modern and more innovative approach to trade development and export promotion. We recommend the above proposals on the basis that they promote the same agenda and offer a genuine partnership between the public and private sectors.
So do I.
12.42 pm
The Minister of State for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for initiating this dabate. He and I have two subjects in common—Latin America and the aerospace industry. His contribution to both is well respected in the House, but his analysis lacked its usual objectivity. I detected a little of his party political views in his comparison of the vote for President Pinochet with that for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
This debate gives me the opportunity not only to respond to the hon. Gentleman's points but to discuss relationships and set out what the Government are doing. In doing so, I shall explain our plans for improving delivery of services and support to British companies. The main vehicle for the new approach is British Trade International, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The debate is timely, in that it coincides with this week's important visit to Brazil by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, accompanied by a strong team of business men and women. I shall return to that visit in due course.
I doubt whether any hon. Member needs to be convinced of the importance of Latin America and the role that it will play in Britain's economy in the future. I became convinced of that in 1995, when I visited the Argentine and Brazil with the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. What we found is as true today as it was then, and the report at the time made several recommendations to the Government. The opportunities for trade and investment were—and are—substantial. Over the past decade, the region has been transformed. It was once a region where too many countries suffered from rampant hyperinflation, unmanageable debt, high tariff walls, low foreign investment and military Governments. The Latin Americans themselves talked about "the lost decade", which is now well and truly behind us. Throughout the region, countries have tamed inflation, slashed tariffs and opened their economies to foreign and intra-regional investment. Developments in the region have brought countries closer together, both politically and economically, and reduced historical animosities and conflicts.
Mercosur—the common market of the south—is recognised throughout the world as a growing economic force and a necessary partner. In 1995, when I was in Latin America with the Select Committee, Mercosur's development was impressive by any standard. The speed at which change has been managed has had a substantial impact on the development of Latin American economies. Mercosur and the people who put these developments in place deserve credit for that.
42WH
As has been said, the Andean community seeks a free trade area with Mercosur. That continuing integration, together with an improving economic climate, will open up vast opportunities for trade and investment. Indeed, the growing robustness of Latin American economies was amply demonstrated during the economic crisis in Japan, south-east Asia and Russia. That crisis, combined with low commodity prices and sluggish world exports, has severely tested the Latin American economies. However, most have come through in a way that has surprised many observers—none more so than that of Brazil. A little more than a year ago, following devaluation of the currency, there were dire warnings. Recession and the re-emergence of rampant inflation were predicted to follow. The picture is now very different: Brazil has achieved a remarkable out-turn. Growth, though small, is defying the doomsters, and inflation has been kept in single digits. Last year saw record investment, so we have a picture of a continent that is very much in business and eager to develop partnerships.
Unfortunately, Britain has been slower than many of our competitors in recognising those changes and the opportunities that have arisen from them. I think that the hon. Gentleman has drawn that to the House's attention. Latin America still does not receive the attention that it deserves in this country in the media, among the business community, or from politicians, despite the efforts of many hon. Members. On the other hand, there has been a striking growth in the teaching of Spanish in our schools and elsewhere. Indeed, two members of my private office staff are taking lessons, so it has even spread to Government Departments. I do not know why; perhaps my staff are trying to tell me something. Perhaps they are on their way.
The striking feature of Britain's involvement with Latin America—as opposed to that of many other countries—has been the prominent role of investment. That means investment in machinery, plant and fixed capital, as opposed to portfolio investment in stocks, shares and other securities. Investment has continued to grow, and has been stimulated by the right economic and political conditions. Britain has long been the leading European investor, athough other countries, such as Spain, which are generally taking a more active role in privatisation, are challenging that. We have a good record in the Argentine, and I hope that our record in Brazil is changing. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister is there—for important investment involving British Gas and the national grid.
When the Select Committee was in Brazil, British Gas—as the whole company was called in 1995—was in the Argentine, laying down a major part of the energy infrastructure. It brought much of its supply base with it. I remember a welding company from Warrington that flew out there as a supplier and sub-contractor to British Gas. The technique of welding was picked up; a good deal of work was fed back to the UK; and a totally different relationship with many of the Argentine companies developed. Many opportunities were created.
Our strength in investment has not acted as it should as a catalyst for trade in goods. Britain has a markedly lower share of Latin American imports than inward investment. It has generally been below 2 per cent., while our share of world imports is closer to 5 per cent. We

43WH
have much to do to correct that imbalance and to start catching up with some of our competitors. Our task is simply stated, but will require a major effort to ensure that many more British companies seize the opportunity for trade, investment and partnership in Latin America.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In my capacity as chairman of the all-party Latin American group, may I thank my right hon. Friend and former squash partner for all the work that he has done in Latin America? Does he intend to see Michael Valdez-Scott and the Latin American trade advisory group about these problems? Is he coming on to that?
Mr. Caborn: Yes, I am coming on to that. It is many years since my hon. Friend and I played squash together. Taking it up again would be no bad thing in view of my current weight.
Much has already been done, but we must look firmly to the future. We must do as much as we can to ensure that our businesses are well equipped for the task ahead. That means ensuring that the support and promotion services provided by the Government are the best available and meet the needs of the business. They must be customer-focused and we must ensure that we use our resources more effectively.
When we came to power in 1997, we began that process with the export forum. Its aim was to assess the effectiveness of existing services and we implemented its key conclusions—more refined market priorities, a greater emphasis on sectors and outward investment, and customer focus, which was to be the key. Having assessed the requirements for services, we needed to establish how best to deliver them. The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, was appointed to that task in 1998. His report on export promotion resulted in the establishment of British Trade International, whose aim was a more coherent approach with an overriding customer and sector focus, an improved regional delivery service and a shift towards trade development. It helped companies, especially small companies, to develop the capacity and ability to tackle overseas markets.
Much has been achieved in a short time by bringing two major Departments of State—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry—together to drive forward the agenda on trade promotion and development. For the first time, there is a published national strategy for trade development and promotion. There is a board, of which I am co-chairman with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, consisting primarily of business people, who meet regularly to help to drive the agenda forward.
Perhaps most importantly, we intend to raise awareness of our services—essential if we are to make an impact in developing British business success overseas. Over the coming months we shall see regional events and a high profile national launch. We shall tell British business and our partners about the important changes in the means by which we provide our services. We shall focus particularly on the new electronic gateway to our services, provide a new emphasis on trade development services and new regional structures, and offer a new service brand unifying our various activities in one joined-up package.
44WH
As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood knows, and as I explained in my recent letter to him, the Wilson report also recommended that the board should review the structure and role of the business advisory groups involved in carrying out promotional activities and providing advice. I reported that those groups vary their focus, financing and role. That task has been undertaken by Sir Martin Laing, until recently the vice-chairman of the board. He has already presented his initial recommendations and I expect him to put his report and final recommendations to the board at the end of this month.
In examining the role of groups such as the Latin American trade advisory group, it is important to distinguish between two separate main functions:advising the Government on a strategic approach to the region; and promoting opportunities in the market. LATAG was set up to give private sector advice to the then British Overseas Trade Board on doing business in Latin America. In addition to serving a committee of private sector representatives, the secretariat also assisted the Department of Trade and Industry in promoting markets, advising on business inquiries and running trade missions. This promotional role supplements a much bigger initiative which the Government have in place to promote Latin America.
Private sector business advice is not confined to LATAG. Our commercial teams in both the United Kingdom and our posts in Latin America include people who have extensive business experience in the region. There are seven export promoters in the UK. They are senior executives who have been seconded from the private sector and have first-hand experience of particular markets and sectors. Staff have been recruited for their business experience and clear knowledge of their own markets. Throughout England, 80 export development counsellors have been recruited from the private sector. They operate within business link networks to assist companies with exporting. Many export development counsellors have been taken on missions to Latin America via British Trade International to familiarise themselves with the markets.
Sir Martin Laing's initial recommendations looked at four strategic multi-market groups which mirrored the internal structure of BTI. These groups could provide advice on regional priorities and spend. Sir Martin also proposed the establishment of export groups associated with these multimarket groups to provide more focus, advice and activity. The groups would be established for a defined period at the end of which their continued relevance and contribution to BTI's objectives would be reviewed. Sir Martin will present his recommendations, including options for the structures of business advisory groups, to the board of BTI at the end of the month. Meanwhile, no decision has been reached on the structure or role of existing groups such as LATAG. When a decision is reached, it will take full account of the contribution that such organisations might make to the delivery of BTI's objectives. It will also take account of other considerations such as efficiency and value for money. It is both helpful and constructive, therefore, that LATAG, in association with Canning House, has submitted proposals to Sir Martin Laing on how its relationship with BTI might evolve. We shall consider the proposals seriously when decisions are taken.

45WH
I wish to make it clear that none of that is preventing the Government from driving forward their commitment to a closer business relationship with Latin America. We are doing this on a number of fronts. But we are targeting specifically the major markets of Brazil and Mexico, by promoting trade missions to and from the region. We are supporting companies which wish to exhibit at trade fairs by supplying a range of support services and through ministerial visits. The Deputy Prime Minister is visiting Brazil this week. The brochure entitled "The Visit to Brazil by the Deputy Prime Minister" sets out the names of the people who have accompanied him and the areas that they will cover. There is an impressive array of top business people from various sectors such as banking, ports, airports, construction, water, telecommunications and energy. My right hon. Friend will meet President Cardoso, senior Ministers and other members of his Government as well as important players in the business community.
Yesterday, we announced increased export credit guarantee cover and reduced premium rates for Brazil. Rates will compete internationally and extra credit will be sufficient to cover the expected significant increase in business. This underlines our commitment to this huge important market and will be an important element in the second year of our initiative to target business opportunities in Brazil and the wider Mercosur region.
46WH
In January, I launched a three-year promotion campaign to help British companies develop their business with Mexico. The campaign will involve a range of new services and initiatives to attempt to raise awareness of Mexico among British businesses, support outward investment, especially by medium-sized companies, encourage the use of digital technology for commercial purposes and develop regional links. As my noble Friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey announced in the upper House last month, we are planning a touring millennium products exhibition next year to several Latin American countries, including the Argentine, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and, possibly, other countries. It will be supported by other events promoting Britain as a country at the leading edge of technology, design and innovation. Finally, there will continue to be a full programme of support for trade fairs and trade missions throughout the region. That programme is intended to be the biggest ever, and will take many British companies to new, exciting markets.
That all adds up to a substantial effort to back our commitment. Indeed, at a recent event attended by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, the Brazilian ambassador offered congratulations—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must wind up.
It being One o'clock the matter for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Sports Colleges
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if grammar schools are eligible for sports college status. [114474]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I can confirm that the specialist schools programme is open to applications from all types of maintained secondary schools—whether or not their admissions arrangements are selective. Schools which are designated Sports, Arts, Language or Technology Colleges are expected to work closely with a "family of schools" to spread the benefits to pupils beyond their own school boundaries and to the wider community.

  Allocations to Worcester Education Authority 1997–98 to 1999–2000 (Hereford and Worcester in 1997–98)1

  £

  Initiative

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  (a) Reduction of infant class sizes:

  (i) revenue

  n/a

  —

  548,000

  (ii) capital

  n/a

  —

  1,156,000

  (b) National Grid for Learning (Standards Fund)

  n/a

  1,125,048

  900,000

  (c) Literacy Programmes (Standards Fund)

  —

  545,785

  631,862

  (d) Numeracy Programmes (Standards Fund)

  —

  4,950

  594,700

  (e) Books for Schools

  359,500

  271,100

  542,200

  (f) Truancy (Standards Fund)

  72,900

  58,100

  224,940

  (g) School Security (Standards Fund)

  303,000

  229,936

  247,714

  (h) School Effectiveness (Standards Fund)

  1,948,200

  1,649,787

  2,646,633

  (i) Excellence in Cities (Standards Fund)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  (j) New Deal for Schools

  733,000

  1,637,302

  2,390,990

  (k) Voluntary Aided Schools Capital

  711,000

  975,000

  1,137,000

  (l) Energy Efficiency

  n/a

  135,000

  n/a

  (m) Music Programmes

  n/a

  n/a

  1,051,596

  (n) Year 6 Booster Classes

  n/a

  120,337

  434,653

  (o) Education Standard Spending Assessment2

  230,777,000

  187,840,000

  198,180,000

  1 Worcester was part of Hereford and Worcester LEA prior to 1 April 1998

  2 In 1997–98 £527 million was removed from Education Standard Spending at national level for the Nursery Voucher Scheme

  Note:

  n/a—not applicable

  Education Spending
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the(a) percentage and (b) actual changes in the national education budget for each of the past 10 years. [113194]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: Details of the percentage and actual changes in UK education expenditure in real terms for 1994–95 to 2001–02 are given in the table. The figures are taken from table 1.4 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 1999–2000 (Cm 4201). Comparable figures for earlier years could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  LEA Funding (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much funding was awarded to Worcestershire local education authority in each year from 1997–98 to 1999–2000 in respect of(a) reduction in infant class sizes, broken down by (i) revenue and (ii) capital, (b) the National Grid for Learning, (c) literacy programmes, (d) numeracy programmes, (e) books for schools, (f) truancy initiatives, (g) schools security, (h) standards fund school effectiveness grant, (i) excellence in cities, (j) New Deal for schools, (k) voluntary-aided schools capital grant, (l) energy efficiency, (m) music programmes, (n) year 6 booster classes and (o) Education SSA. [113914]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The figures requested are shown in the table. For Standards Fund grants, the figures include both the Government's and the local education authority's contributions where appropriate. The figures shown for Education Standard Spending Assessment also include provision for the Authority's contribution to the Standards Fund. For 1997–98, figures are given for Hereford and Worcester.

  As a proportion of GDP, education spending is forecast to increase from 4.7 per cent. in 1996–97 to some 4.9 per cent. in 2001–02.

  1997–98 prices

  Year

  Education spending (£ billion)

  Percentage change

  Actual change (£ billion)

  1994–95

  37.8

  3.3

  1.2

  1995–96

  37.6

  -0.3

  -0.1

  1996–97

  37.1

  -1.5

  -0.6

  1997–98

  37.4

  0.9

  0.3

  1998–99

  37.4

  0.0

  0.0

  1999–2000

  39.3

  5.1

  1.9

  2000–01

  41.6

  5.9

  2.3

  2001–02

  43.5

  4.6

  1.9

  101W
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the percentage increase in revenue spending on education by Her Majesty's Government in each of the past 10 years. [113886]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: Details of changes in UK education spending since 1994–95 were provided in the reply given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane). Information on the revenue elements of these figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Electricity Regulation
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the Utilities Bill on electricity supply and distribution and renewable energy in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [113610]

  Mr. Wilson
  This Government are determined to put the interests of consumers first, both north and south of the border. The Utilities Bill contains provisions aimed at facilitating further competition in the electricity and gas markets, and thus are expected to lead to price reductions for consumers. This includes a bar on supply and distribution licences being held by the same legal person. It also allows for the continuation of arrangements ensuring that remote areas of Scotland do not suffer from discriminatory pricing.

  The Bill contains a provision for a separate renewables obligation in Scotland which will contribute towards the Government's target of renewable energy providing 10 per cent. of UK electricity supplies by 2010.

  Wage Differentials
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet Ministers in the Scottish Executive to discuss steps to investigate the reasons for the difference between the average weekly wages of women and men in Glasgow. [113214]

  Dr. Reid
  I meet Scottish Executive Ministers, including the First Minister, on a regular basis and discuss a wide range of issues with them, including action to reduce inequalities such as the gender pay gap. The UK Government are tackling the gender pay gap across Great Britain through a range of measures such as encouraging less gender stereotyping and considering ways of interesting more women in careers in information and communication technology. Other measures to help people, predominantly women, combine work and other responsibilities include the campaign on work/life balance, New Deals for Lone Parents and Partners, the Working Families Tax Credit and childcare tax credit and fairness at work measures such as parental leave, improved maternity leave and rights for part-time workers.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will publish the papers he has concerning the request made to the Attorney-General for permission to pursue a private prosecution of General Pinochet for the death of William Beausire and Father Michael Woodward. [113942]

  The Solicitor-General
  Applications for Law Officer consent to prosecute Senator Pinochet were received from three firms of solicitors. The offences alleged which required Law Officer consent concerned torture contrary to section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and hostage taking contrary to the Taking of Hostages Act 1982. The allegations against Senator Pinochet concerned a number of different victims.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Sir J. Morris) considered applications from the first two firms of solicitors when he was Attorney-General. The last application was considered by myself. The applications were taken seriously and given careful consideration. We received counsel's advice on them. Having done so consent was refused in respect of each application.

  It would not be appropriate for me to publish material that others have submitted in support of their applications for Law Officer consent. That is for the solicitors. The reason why consent was declined was explained to the solicitors at the time and outlined in my statement to the House on 2 March 2000, Official Report, columns 589–92.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Carter Center, Atlanta
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the(a) projects carried out since 1997 and (b) work in progress under part or full funding by her Department by the Carter Center, Atlanta, United States of America. [112748]

  Clare Short
  My Department has provided the following funding to the Carter Center.£2 million over four years (1996–97 to 1999–2000) for a Guinea worm eradication project covering a variety of countries in the West Africa region.
  £230,014 towards the cost of Carter Center monitoring of Mozambique 1999 General Elections. This ongoing project will conclude with Carter Center's final election assessment visit to Mozambique.

  Polish-British Enterprise Project
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will place in the Library a copy of the letter from Mr. Jeremy Davenport of her Department to the British Council dated 4 December 1994 concerning the outcome of the Polish-British Enterprise Project. [113738]

  Clare Short
  A copy of the letter is being placed in the Library.
  103W
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what evaluation her Department made of the leadership of Dr. Brian Burrows on the Polish-British Enterprise Project between 13 and 18 November 1994. [113737]

  Clare Short
  The first monitoring visit to the project took place from 13–18 November 1994. A number of recommendations concerning project strategy and direction were made in the report which followed and some problems within the project at that time were also highlighted. A copy of the report was provided to Dr. Burrows.

  India
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the level of financial support given by her Department to projects in India in each year since 1992 and 1993. [113652]

  Clare Short
  The table lists spending by my Department on projects in India for each year since 1992–93:

  £000

  Financial year

  Spending on projects

  1992–93

  74,719

  1993–94

  79,231

  1994–95

  83,795

  1995–96

  99,774

  1996–97

  92,393

  1997–98

  80,896

  1998–99

  92,275

DEFENCE

  Depleted Uranium Shells
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are taken to protect personnel in training and operational areas exposed to discharged depleted uranium ammunition. [112839]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: We do not use depleted uranium during routine training. It is used during trials and has been used in operations. Detailed safety instructions are distributed to all Arms and Services Training Establishments and to all units serving in operational theatres where there may be a risk of exposure to discharged depleted uranium ammunition. MOD trial sites are subject to a comprehensive programme of monitoring, the results of which are published annually.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many rounds of depleted uranium shells were fired by coalition forces during the Gulf War; how many were fired by UK tanks; how many UK tanks carried depleted uranium shells; and if he will make a statement. [113956]

  Mr. Spellar
  The US Department of Defense has assessed that over 860,000 DU-based ammunition rounds, of varying calibre, were used by US Forces during the 1990–91 Gulf conflict. The MOD's current assessment is that UK tanks fired fewer than 100 DU rounds against Iraqi military forces during hostilities, although additional 104W
  rounds were fired during earlier work-up training in Saudi Arabia. DU munitions were available in-theatre for the British Main Battle Tanks deployed in combat. These totalled 176 with a further 45 as in-theatre War Reserve.

  DU-based tank ammunition was brought into service by the Ministry of Defence because of its unique capability as a kinetic penetrator against the most modern types of Main Battle Tank armour. No satisfactory alternative material currently exists to achieve the levels of penetration required to defeat modern tanks. Although research is being conducted into alternative materials, none have so far demonstrated significant potential. There are, therefore, no plans to remove DU-based ammunition from service. Indeed, if the safety of British troops in any conflict required such a capability against modern Main Battle Tank armour, DU-based ammunition would be deployed and used.

  Surplus Nuclear Material
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantities of strategic nuclear material have been declared surplus to military requirements in the last 10 years; when, and in what form, the material was transferred to civilian facilities and in which locations; on what date the material was notified to Euratom and IAEA safeguards authorities as non-military; when the first visits were paid by inspection teams from each body respectively to verify the notification; and what costs have been incurred to date in the transfer of status of the nuclear material. [113285]

  Dr. Moonie
  Details of the defence nuclear materials which are now deemed to be surplus to our requirements are given in paragraph 26 of Supporting Essay 5 of the Strategic Defence Review (Cm 3999), copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  During July and August 1998, the following material was brought into safeguards:

  Approximately 4.1 tonnes of plutonium stored at the BNFL Sellafield facility; Approximately 9,000 tonnes of depleted natural and low enriched uranium at the BNFL Capenhurst, Chapelcross, Sellafield and Springfields facilities and UKAEA Harwell.

  Steps are being taken to move 0.3 tonnes of weapon grade plutonium (in the form of oxide) stored at AWE Aldermaston to Sellafield when it too will be formally reported to Euratom and brought into safeguards. To date, some 73 kilograms of this material have been transferred; the remainder will be moved as soon as is practicable.

  In addition to the material referred to above, there have been a number of occasions over the last 10 years where material has been brought into safeguards—notably in 1996 when the Calder Hall reactors and the fuel associated with them came into safeguards. The Department for Trade and Industry are responsible for safeguards issues. However, they have advised that the detailed information requested on the large numbers of these other transfers into safeguards and also inspections by the international safeguards authorities is not collated centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  105W
  Activities to verify nuclear material which has been brought into safeguards have been added to Euratom's ongoing schedule of routine safeguards inspections at the facilities concerned. These routine inspections are such that there is essentially continuous Euratom presence at Sellafield, weekly inspections at the Springfields location and less frequent inspection visits to the other facilities concerned.

  The costs to the Defence Budget of the transfers to date are £524,000 (including VAT) and include the costs of preparation, transports, acceptance of the material at Sellafield and storage.

  Astute Class Submarines
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what benefits the equipping of the CM010 optronic masts to the Astute Class nuclear attack submarines will provide; what is the cost of the contract for them; and if he will make a statement. [113912]

  Dr. Moonie
  The optronics masts to be fitted to the three Astute Class submarines currently on order supersede the conventional optical periscopes fitted to earlier RN submarines. The optronics masts offer significant benefits over conventional periscopes. These include improved hull integrity (strength) as the optronics mast no longer needs to penetrate the hull of the submarine; and greater operational flexibility such as improved target analysis, improved effectiveness in different sea states/weather conditions, improved night vision and the ability to distribute and display images on other systems within the submarine. The optronics masts also offer lower through life costs as they require a lower level of technical expertise and maintenance facilities to support them.

  The optronics masts are being procured from Pilkington Optronics Ltd. The contract for the masts was placed by the Ministry's Prime Contractor for the Astute Class submarines (BAE SYSTEMS) following competition. The terms and conditions of the sub-contract, including the price, are "commercial—in confidence" and I am, therefore, withholding this information under exemption 13 of the Government's Code on Open Government.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the long-term effects of smoke inhalation from burning oil wells incurred during and immediately following the Gulf War; and if he will make a statement. [113911]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence has examined the possibility that pollution caused by oil well fires during the Gulf conflict could be responsible for the ill-health now being experienced by some UK Gulf veterans. No evidence has so far emerged to suggest that this is the case. In March 1991, when UK Forces were stationed in Kuwait, consideration was given to the health risks from oil well fires. Information supplied by Shell UK stated that Kuwaiti crude oil had a high (2.5 per cent.) sulphur content. Combustion products were said to contain carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and particulates which were not carcinogens.
  106W
  From June to October 1991, the health of personnel serving in 21 EOD Squadron Royal Engineers, who worked in the area affected by smoke, was monitored. A description of this work was published in the Royal Army Medical Corps Journal 1993; 139: 95–97. The results were that exposure to oil fire smoke did not appear to have any effect on respiratory function. No assessment has since been made by the Ministry of Defence of the long-term effects of smoke inhalations in the Gulf.

  MOD Property
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 March 2000,Official Report, column 638W, and his oral answers of 21 February 2000, Official Report, column 1219 and 24 January 2000, Official Report, column 10, concerning future use of MOD property, what the relationship is between the confidentiality requested by developers and the requirement to provide information to local and national elected representatives. [114417]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: There is no relationship between the confidentiality requested by developers and the requirement to provide information to local and national elected representatives.

  It is my Department's policy to inform all purchasers of surplus Ministry of Defence property that the final sale price will be made known to any party who requests that information. A purchaser can, however, refuse consent to the sale price being made public on the grounds of commercial confidentiality and in these instances exemption 7 of the Code on Access to Government Information is invoked.

  Discussions on the future use of MOD property take place with local authorities at a much earlier stage and I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces on 24 January 2000, Official Report, column 60W, on this point. If a purchaser subsequently refuses consent for the final sale price to be made public, this does not affect these early discussions in any way.

  Departmental Staff
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what child care provision was made available in the financial year 1998–99 for use by (i) his departmental staff and (ii) employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department; what was the cost to parents of this child care; and how many parents used the facilities. [108833]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Civil Service, as a whole, is striving for an improved balance between work and family life. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 February 2000,Official Report, columns 518–19W, which provides further details about the importance of family life policies to the Civil Service Reform programme.

  During 1998–99, there were a total of 15 workplace nurseries available to my Departmental staff, with a further two in operation for staff employed in executive agencies. These facilities, together with a number of places purchased in off-site private nurseries, provided some 700 full-time places for children of civilian and, occasionally, Service personnel working in Ministry of

  107W
  Defence establishments. The monthly cost to parents of a full-time place ranged from approximately £242 to £411 (depending on the location and level of departmental subsidy) for Departmental staff, and from approximately £320 to £340 for staff employed in executive agencies, giving an average monthly cost of £308. In addition, my Department subsidises a number of places in holiday play schemes for children of school age. Information about the number of personnel who used these facilities during 1998–99 is not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in the last five years, what proportion of women employees in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies under the control of his Department,(a) returned to work after childbirth, (b) returned to work after childbirth before the end of maternity leave, indicating the (1) time-range and (2) mean time, (c) returned to work after childbirth on reduced working hours, indicating the average hours worked and (d) returned to work after childbirth full-time and subsequently reduced their hours. [109237]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Civil Service, as a whole, is striving for an improved balance between work and family life. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 February 2000,Official Report, column 519W, which provides further details about the importance of family life policies to the Civil Service Reform programme.

  In respect of my Department, I regret that information on maternity leave and working patterns following maternity leave is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Kosovo (Unexploded Ordnance)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have been(a) killed and (b) injured in Kosovo as a result of unexploded ordnance in the form of bomblets within cluster bombs used by UK forces in Kosovo since the cessation of the campaign there. [112362]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is not always possible to identify accurately which nation's munitions have been the cause of casualties arising from incidents involving cluster bomblets. Nor is the precise type of munition always identifiable.

  The most recent figures provided by NATO assess that cluster bomblets have killed 22 civilians in Kosovo with a further 27 injured. Additionally, a further three military personnel have been killed, with four injured.

  KFOR has now cleared more than 8,870 unexploded bomblets from Kosovo. All unexploded ordnance sites in the UK-led sector of Kosovo have now been marked, and 90 per cent. of unexploded cluster bomb munitions cleared.

  Precision Guided Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what types of precision guided weapons are in service with the Royal Air Force. [113746]
  108W
  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently nine guided weapons in service with the RAF: Sidewinder, ALARM, Skyflash, Harpoon, Rapier, Stingray, AMRAAM, PAVEWAY II and PAVEWAY III. All these weapons are capable of being guided precisely to their target.

  Sighting Systems
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many striker helmet-mounted sighting systems his Department plans to acquire; at what cost; if they will be used in the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement. [113910]

  Dr. Moonie
  Forty-six helmet mounted sighting systems have been procured for Royal Air Force Jaguar GR3A aircraft at a cost of some £3.5 million. There are currently no plans to install the system on Royal Navy aircraft.

  Equipment Approval
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the outcome of the meeting of the Equipment Approval Committee on 21 February regarding Air Foyle's plan to use two Antonov AN-24–100 airliners for short-term strategic airlift requirements; and if he will make a statement. [113953]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence Equipment Approvals Committee's consideration of the short-term strategic airlift project constitutes advice to Ministers and I am therefore withholding details under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  European Collaborative Ventures
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take account of(a) the likely effect of the number of aircraft ordered on the overall share of business for British companies generated by the A400M aircraft and (b) the risk that United Kingdom firms might be excluded from future European collaborative ventures when reaching a decision between the A400M and the C17 aircraft. [113907]

  Dr. Moonie
  In reaching conclusions on our future air transport requirements, we will take into account a range of factors, including the industrial and international factors you mention, while at the same time seeking value for money for the taxpayer.

  Landmines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the threat posed by anti-personnel mines to members of British armed forces deployed in relief efforts in Mozambique. [114369]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department has made an assessment of the mine threat to our forces supporting relief operations in Mozambique based on information from a variety of sources, including the UN and Non-Government Organisations dealing with the mine threat left over from the civil war. Based on such information, we have taken a series of steps to make all our forces in Mozambique aware of the hazards, and to advise them on appropriate precautionary measures to minimise the risks.

  Training Ammunition
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the amount of training ammunition expended by the(a) Army infantry, (b) Royal Artillery and (c) Navy, expressed as a percentage, in each of the last five years, taking 1995 as 100 per cent. [114254]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in the current year's Defence Housing Executive upgrade programme(a) what percentage of contractors underbid significantly, (b) if he will list the contractors who
  (i) underbid and (ii) were subsequently dismissed and
  (c) by what percentage retendered prices were higher than the original bids. [113751]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The Defence Housing Executive is not aware of any contractors who have significantly underbid for contracts in the current year's upgrade programme. There have, however, been instances of such problems relating to sub-contractors for response repair work in some locations. I am obtaining data on these and will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the reduction in this year's Defence Housing Executive budget for upgrades will be restored in the next financial year. [113753]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: Budget allocations for the coming financial year have yet to be decided, but it is the intention to achieve or better the target date for completion of the upgrade programme by the end of 2005.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the review of the Defence Housing Executive prepared jointly by his Department and the Treasury. [113755]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: A joint Treasury/MOD review of Service housing has recently completed and the report is in the final course of drafting. My Ministerial colleagues in the Treasury and I have not yet had an opportunity to consider its recommendations. There are no plans to publish what is an internal document. However, I would expect the outcome of the review to be announced in due course.

  Family Quarters
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what price will be charged to service families for the Defence Housing Executive's contract cleaning scheme on vacating property; where it will be trialled; when it will be available universally; and if he will make a statement. [113757]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The charges for cleaning Families' Quarters on vacation have yet to be determined and are likely to vary according to location and property size. The trial will be run in all areas where the Defence Housing Executive has managerial responsibility; that is to say, throughout the UK mainland.
  110W
  The trial, which will run from autumn 2000 for 12 months, is designed to identify and iron out any procedural difficulties in order that a cost effective long term contract can be put in place on its completion. Use of the scheme by occupants will be entirely optional. They may, if they choose, continue as now to make their own arrangements for cleaning on moving out.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the return rate for the defence housing executive's customer satisfaction slips; and if he will make a statement. [113752]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: Between June and November 1999 (the latest available figures) the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) had a 15.7 per cent. response rate from customers in Families' Quarters who had requested repairs to their properties. Of these, 91.2 per cent. indicated that they were satisfied with the repairs made.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many married quarters in each grade are available to the Defence Housing Executive; how many service families are entitled to quarters in each grade; and if he will make a statement. [113758]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The breakdown of family quarters by type is as follows:

  Number

  Officers:

  I

  73

  II

  370

  III

  1,986

  IV

  3,962

  V

  5,629

  Other ranks

  D

  3,842

  C

  28,807

  B

  17,034

  A

  0

  All married personnel in the Armed Forces are entitled to a quarter near their place of duty and the allocation of quarters is based partly on rank and partly on family size. Entitlement to a type of quarter changes whenever either of those variables alters. It is therefore not possible to break down the figures to indicate how many Service families are entitled to quarters in each grade.

  When seeking to identify demand for future housing stock levels, current demand (which is a reflection of family requirements) is used as an indicator. DHE would not, for example, seek to retain or replace quarters of a type for which current demand was low.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards service families left living in service quarters after divorce or separation from the serviceman or woman to whom those quarters had been allocated. [114207]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: In the event of marital breakdown, the Marital Category of the Service person changes from married to single. At this point, unless the Service person has custodial responsibilities for a child, they are no longer entitled to occupy a family quarter and are consequently required

  111W
  to move into single living accommodation. The estranged family is also required to vacate the family quarter but is given a 93 day notice period in which to do so. The Service person continues to be liable to pay the entitled rate of accommodation charges for the duration of the notice period.

  DHE issues a Notice to Vacate at the beginning of the 93 day period and advises the estranged spouse to contact the local authority to inquire about housing. If the estranged spouse remains in the family quarter after the 93 day notice has expired, they become liable to pay Damages for Trespass. This charge is calculated on the basis of prevailing market rents in that particular area. At the 93 day point, DHE will review the particular circumstances and decide whether to apply for a Possession Order.

  If the quarter is required for another, entitled, Service family or if the local authority will not consider the estranged family for local authority housing unless they can demonstrate impending homelessness, the DHE will seek a Possession Order.

  DHE officials liaise with local authority staff on such cases and it is usually possible for local authorities and DHE to agree a mutually convenient move out date for the family.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the review of married quarters estates produced by Professor Ian Cole of Sheffield University. [113754]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: Copies of Professor Cole's study on the Ministry of Defence Mixed Estates were placed in the Library of the House in 1998.

  RAF Accommodation
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many quarters at(a) RAF Halton and (b) RAF High Wycombe are the subject of repossession proceedings; how many of those cases involve households with dependent children; and if he will make a statement. [114206]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: There are no extant possession orders—nor are any being sought at RAF High Wycombe. At RAF Halton, there are four extant possession orders and a further ten are being sought. Thirteen of these 14 cases involve dependent children. Evictions from Service Family Quarters are very rare. Issue of a possession order is often, however, a pre-requirement by local authorities to accept responsibility for re-housing families. DHE officials are in regular contact with the local authorities and the Station Welfare representatives to help rehouse these families.

  Reserve Forces
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to callout members of the reserve forces to support United Nations operations in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo. [114880]

  Mr. Spellar
  A call-out order has been made under section 56 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to permit members of the reserve forces to be called out for service with the UN monitoring and observer forces in Sierra 112W
  Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Only a small number are expected to be called out, as and when suitable posts arise, and all will be volunteers for this work.

  Strategic Airlift
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the European Staff Requirement on strategic airlift. [113934]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The European Staff Requirement for the Future Large Aircraft (now A400M) includes the specific requirements of all seven countries involved in the programme and has security and commercial sensitivities attached to some of the information it contains. I am therefore withholding this information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  London Underground Escalators
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how long the London Underground escalators to the Victoria Line from Kings Cross railway station will be out of commission. [113077]

  Mr. Hill
  These are operational matters for London Underground. They have informed me that in addition to temporary repairs, agreed with HMRI, to bring some of the recently discovered defective escalators back into service quickly, they will start a full programme of work to repair or replace the defective escalators in late May, once redesigned shafts have been manufactured. The programme will be completed in the autumn. Kings Cross is high on London Underground's priorities along with Oxford Circus and Walthamstow Central.

  Asbestos-related Deaths
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total number of deaths from asbestos-related diseases in the UK for each of the last five years for which figures are available broken down by(a) region and (b) occupation. [113328]

  Mr. Meacher
  The figures available are set out in the tables. These detail the deaths from mesothelioma and asbestosis in Great Britain between 1993 and 1997 by region and by occupational group. Occupational information is only available for people aged under 75 at the time of death and has only been recorded in the Health and Safety Executive's register of asbestosis deaths since 1995. No information is available for asbestos-related lung cancer because it cannot be medically distinguished from lung cancer from other causes.

  A more detailed breakdown of the figures on mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain by occupation and by geographical distribution, published by the Health and Safety Executive, will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  113W

  Table 1: Mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain by region

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  North

  114

  112

  119

  118

  145

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  91

  120

  120

  130

  106

  North West

  111

  128

  127

  121

  152

  West Midlands

  74

  82

  84

  85

  99

  East Midlands

  70

  58

  79

  76

  71

  South West

  103

  93

  96

  116

  105

  East Anglia

  39

  38

  50

  57

  50

  South East excluding Greater London

  228

  297

  298

  291

  282

  Greater London

  140

  134

  138

  137

  154

  Wales

  51

  51

  53

  50

  53

  Scotland

  122

  128

  150

  123

  113

  Overseas

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  1,143

  1,241

  1,317

  1,304

  1,330

  Table 3: Mesothelioma deaths aged under 75 in Great Britain by occupational order group

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Professional and related supporting management; senior national and local government managers

  27

  20

  27

  26

  23

  Professional and related in education, welfare and health

  24

  27

  32

  21

  25

  Literary, artistic and sports

  5

  —

  5

  6

  2

  Professional and related in science, engineering, technology and similar fields

  39

  42

  48

  44

  50

  Managerial

  75

  64

  82

  70

  80

  Clerical and related

  44

  60

  57

  52

  44

  Selling

  18

  19

  17

  14

  18

  Security and protective services

  8

  25

  15

  16

  20

  Catering, cleaning, hairdressing and other personal service

  31

  34

  34

  31

  39

  Farming, fishing and related

  5

  8

  8

  4

  5

  Materials processing; making and repairing (excluding metal and electrical)

  79

  99

  94

  110

  75

  Processing, making, repairing and related (metal and electrical)

  259

  244

  261

  260

  272

  Painting, repetitive assembling, product inspecting, packaging and related

  43

  37

  41

  42

  32

  Construction, mining and related not identified elsewhere

  46

  81

  79

  74

  90

  Transport operating, materials moving and storing and related

  58

  70

  68

  65

  77

  Miscellaneous

  37

  46

  49

  46

  41

  Occupation not stated on death certificate

  59

  61

  55

  52

  47

  All occupations

  857

  937

  972

  933

  940

  Table 4: Asbestosis deaths (excluding those also mentioning mesothelioma) aged under 75 in Great Britain by occupational order group

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Professional and related supporting management; senior national and local government managers

  1

  —

  —

  Professional and related in education, welfare and health

  1

  1

  —

  Literary, artistic and sports

  1

  —

  1

  Professional and related in science, engineering, technology and similar fields

  —

  1

  1

  Managerial

  2

  2

  6

  Clerical and related

  1

  2

  2

  Selling

  —

  —

  2

  Security and protective services

  3

  4

  2

  Catering, cleaning, hairdressing and other personal service

  3

  9

  3

  Farming, fishing and related

  —

  —

  3

  Materials processing; making and repairing (excluding metal and electrical)

  12

  5

  10

  Processing, making, repairing and related (metal and electrical)

  32

  46

  47

  Painting, repetitive assembling, product inspecting, packaging and related

  1

  4

  6

  Construction, mining and related not identified elsewhere

  23

  23

  17

  Transport operating, materials moving and storing and related

  9

  6

  4

  Miscellaneous

  6

  12

  5

  Occupation not stated on death certificate

  6

  3

  2

  All occupations

  101

  118

  111

  Dumped Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many dumped motor vehicles there were in the Greater London area in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [113605]114W

  Table 2: Asbestosis deaths (excluding those also mentioning mesothelioma) in Great Britain by region

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  North

  35

  41

  29

  36

  33

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  17

  21

  17

  9

  14

  North West

  32

  28

  30

  46

  32

  West Midlands

  6

  6

  8

  5

  8

  East Midlands

  4

  8

  7

  3

  5

  South West

  21

  16

  16

  16

  23

  East Anglia

  1

  2

  1

  3

  3

  South East excluding Greater London

  15

  14

  12

  22

  21

  Greater London

  23

  21

  18

  38

  25

  Wales

  4

  4

  6

  12

  8

  Scotland

  14

  12

  22

  5

  16

  Overseas

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Great Britain

  173

  174

  166

  196

  189

  Mr. Mullin
  The removal of abandoned vehicles in the Greater London area is the responsibility of local authorities under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 and the Department holds no central records of the number of vehicles identified as abandoned and subsequently removed and disposed of.

  Tourist Buses
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what monitoring his Department carries out on emissions from open-topped tourist buses in town and city centres. [113639]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government do not specifically monitor emissions from open-topped tourist buses. These vehicles only account for a very small proportion of bus journeys, even in towns and cities with a large tourism industry.

  The Government, nevertheless, want to encourage more clean, low emission vehicles for public and private bus services in towns and cities. We have introduced fiscal measures to encourage cleaner vehicles and fuels, including a VED concession for buses with very low particulate emissions and a fuel duty differential for ultra low sulphur diesel.

  All buses and coaches are already subject to a black smoke emission test, as part of the annual roadworthiness test, and the Vehicle Inspectorate has powers to conduct roadside emission testing of these vehicles. The Government are also currently considering whether local authorities should have similar powers following trials by seven local authorities.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the cost of extending the 50 per cent. concessionary fare scheme to 100 per cent., using the same basis as outlined in the national concessionary fares scheme cost assessment (annexe B), in the consultation document, "Implementation of Statutory Minimum Concessionary Fares Commitment". [113582]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 8 March 2000]: The estimated extra cost, in respect of people of pensionable age, and assuming a minimum charge of £5 for a bus pass, is in the order of £300 million per year for local authorities in England and Wales. This reflects the fact that relatively few local authorities already operate concessionary fare schemes which provide travel at less than half fare.

  Nautical Studies
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what steps his Department is taking to encourage nautical education; [113546]

  (2) what recent representations he has received regarding the GCSE course and examination in nautical studies; [113548]

  (3) what recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the GCSE in nautical studies. [113577]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 8 March 2000]: The Government attach great importance to encouraging young people to consider a career at sea. DETR provides training support grants through the Support for Maritime Training (SMarT) scheme, proposes to attach a minimum training obligation to the shipping tonnage tax, and
  116W
  strongly supports the educational role played by the Merchant Navy Training Board as the National Training Organisation.

  Following representation on behalf of the Hull Trinity House School and the London Nautical School, we are consulting colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment on how best to support nautical education, including GCSE Nautical Studies.

  Cycling and Walking
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people within his Department are working full-time on(a) cycling and (b) walking; and what the figures were in each of the last five years. [113913]

  Mr. Hill
  A total 11 staff in my Department are employed wholly or almost wholly on matters concerned with cycling and/or walking. All are full-time. This is the same number as a year ago. Figures for earlier years are not available on a comparable basis.

  Hedgerows
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the length of hedgerows which have been destroyed during each of the last three years. [114138]

  Mr. Meacher
  This information is not held centrally. However, a survey of hedgerow stock is being undertaken as part of Countryside Survey 2000 and the results are due to be published around the end of this year. This will provide estimates of the length of hedgerow that has been lost from the countryside since previous surveys in 1990 and 1993, and a baseline for monitoring future changes.

  Gatwick Airport
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department's south-east and east of England Regional Air Services Study will include an assessment of the northern runway option at Gatwick. [114344]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: As the then Minister for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), announced on 11 March 1999, Official Report, columns 360–61W, the study will examine a wide range of options, including both terminal and runway capacity. The study has started from the position that nothing is ruled in or ruled out. Options will be appraised through a process of successive sifts. Following completion of the study there will be a public consultation on the options arising from it. Until then, it would be premature to comment on the status of any option.

  Dangerous Loads
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the safety aspects relating to potentially dangerous loads of the accident on the M3 near Basingstoke on 7 March. [114371]
  117W
  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The police and HSE are currently investigating this serious incident which occurred near Junction 7 on the M3 on 7 March and involved a lorry carrying butane gas cylinders. I will consider any general implications for amendments to safety regulation once that investigation has been reported.

  Estates Renewal Challenge Fund
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he will give details of his replacement for the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund; [114415]

  (2) what additional money will be available for the replacement of the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund next year. [114414]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The Estates Renewal Challenge Fund facilitated the transfer of negative value council housing stock to registered social landlords. Where its housing strategy includes such a transfer, a local authority may now consider funding it through its main housing investment programme and, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced on 7 December 1999, over £2 billion has been allocated for local authority housing investment in 2000–01. The New Deal for Communities programme, the Single Regeneration Budget and the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme may also be used to fund negative value transfers.

  Brownfield Sites
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is his estimate of the acreage of brownfield sites available for housing development in(a) London and (b) the South East Region; [114385]

  (2) what register there is of brownfield sites available for housing development in (a) London and (b) the South East Region. [114384]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: Information on previously developed sites in England, which may be available for redevelopment has been collected in Phase I of the National Land Use Database. Summary provisional estimates published last May in the DETR/GSS Information Bulletin 500 show the area for each Government Office Region of vacant, derelict and other previously developed land and the amounts which either had planning permission or were judged suitable for housing. The extract table shows the provisional results for the Government Office Regions for South East and London. Final estimates will be published shortly. The estimates are a 'snapshot' for 1998, based on the sites reported by local authorities at the time and may only be a partial appraisal. They take no account of future supply of previously developed land. Urban capacity studies, as required by Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing (issued 7 March), will provide local authorities with a further means of identifying the full scope for reuse of land and buildings for housing.
  118W

  All previously developed land that is unused or may be available for redevelopment 1 by planned use, suitability for housing and Government Office Region: England 1998

  Hectares/numbers

  Government Office Region

  London

  South East

  Planning allocation or permission 2:

  Housing

  660

  1,870

  Mixed use

  920

  1,740

  Other

  680

  2,890

  None

  570

  3,240

  All previously developed land that is unused or may be available for redevelopment:

  2,820

  9,740

  of which-Suitable for housing 3

  Total area

  1,720

  81,650

  Number of dwellings4

  5,460

  119,820

  1 Comprises previously developed vacant and derelict land, vacant buildings (excluding single dwellings except where they could be developed into 10 or more dwellings); land or buildings currently in use, which are allocated in the local plan for any developed use, have planning permission for housing or with known potential for redevelopment

  2 Land that has planning permission or is allocated in a local plan for the use indicated (includes some allocations in draft plans)

  3 Based on sites judged by the local authorities to be suitable for residential development immediately, within 5 years, or suitable with planning or development constraints

  4 Based on existing planning permissions or estimated capacity based on current density assumptions

  Ill Health Retirement Guidelines
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the ill health retirement guidelines for ME sufferers who are members of the Local government Pension Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [114380]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: There are no medical guidelines on ill-health retirement for Local Government Pension Scheme members suffering from ME published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Decisions on whether or not to retire an employee on medical grounds are for individual local authority employers to take within their available powers.

  London Underground (Access)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if each station on the new Jubilee tube line is fully accessible to disabled people; [114353]

  (2) what facilities exist at Westminster tube station for access without assistance to trains by wheelchair users. [114354]

  Mr. Hill
  London Transport's Unit for Disabled Passengers provides a comprehensive advice and information service for disabled travellers including a guide book entitled "Access to the Underground".

  I can confirm that step free access has been provided from the street to Jubilee Line trains at all of the stations between Westminster and Stratford inclusive on the Extended Jubilee Line. (In addition, lift access has been provided to the East London Line at Canada Water, the

  119W
  Northern Line at London Bridge and the District and Circle Lines at Westminster as part of the Jubilee Line Extension project).

  Mobility impaired passengers can travel unassisted at Canada Water, Canary Wharf and North Greenwich stations. At Stratford, West Ham and Bermondsey and Southwark stations lifts can at present only be used by passengers accompanied by staff. Unfortunately the lifts at London Bridge and Waterloo are not yet in service and some at Westminster station are temporarily unserviceable. Detailed plans are in hand to bring these lifts into service.

  On Westminster station specifically, once all lifts are back in service, wheelchair users will be able to access trains on the Jubilee line unaided. (Assistance will continue to be available to wheelchair users travelling on the District and Circle Line at Westminster station since there is no level access between train and platform on this line).

  Video Conferencing
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evaluation he has made of the use of video conferencing by his Department to help reduce journeys by car for business purposes; and if he will make a statement on the contribution of video conferencing to reducing car journeys. [114579]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department's travel plans promote the use of video conferencing as one of the means to reduce car journeys. DETR(C) has set a target to increase the use of video conferencing by 10 per cent. a year. Use of video conferencing will be included in future annual reports on greening DETR.

  Voluntary and Community Transport
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to publish a report on voluntary and community transport. [114483]

  Mr. Hill
  A major review of voluntary and community transport, commissioned by my Department, was completed last summer and a report of the main findings was published in July and widely disseminated to voluntary transport groups and to local authorities, inviting their comments.

  A list of action points has now been identified which affects both central and local Government and the voluntary and community transport sector itself. These points are being addressed.

  In parallel the Department is running a series of seminars around the country in conjunction with the Community Transport Association and with local authorities to highlight key issues arising from the review.

  Rail Summit
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has decided the date, time and venue for the proposed rail summit in May; and if he will make a statement. [114482]
  120W
  Mr. Hill
  It is now confirmed that the next National Rail Summit will be held at the QEII centre in London on the 25 May this year.

  London Mayoral Election
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he will take to ensure sufficient availability of paper for the central production of the Greater London Mayoral Elections Booklet; and if he will make a statement. [114484]

  Mr. Hill
  No measures are needed. I am pleased to say that all the necessary paper has been ordered at the request of the Greater London Returning Officer.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 28 February 2000, Official Report, column 134W, on EU structural funds, if he will state in both sterling and euros the amounts allocated to(a) Scotland, (b) Northern Ireland, (c) Wales and (d) England, the totals in each area of the matching funds required, and (i) the amounts so far agreed and (ii) yet to be found by Her Majesty's Government and other sources. [113728]

  Mr. Caborn
  The table gives the 1999 EU structural fund allocations for Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England for Objective 1, 2 and 5b. Objectives 3, 4, 5a and the Community Initiatives totalling £296 million, 448 million euros, are managed on a UK basis and cannot be attributed by region. The 1999 match funding figures do not include the UK managed funds or the amount yet to be found which is still to be calculated.

  1999 Structural Funds

  million

  £

  Euros

  Allocations

  Scotland

  190

  286

  Wales

  75

  113

  Northern Ireland

  446

  672

  England

  741

  1,118

  Match funding

  Scotland

  243

  366

  Wales

  111

  167

  Northern Ireland

  159

  240

  England

  820

  1,237

  BNFL
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what liaison has taken place between his Department and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, since July 1999, in respect of assessing progress made by BNFL in meeting the enhanced safety targets he established in his statement on the proposed PPP for BNFL. [114083]
  121W
  Dr. Howells
  While NII has no formal role in assessing BNFL's performance against the targets announced last July by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my officials are in regular contact with HSE, of which NII is a part, on BNFL's safety performance.

  "A Fairer Measure"
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the conclusions of the consultation on the document, "A Fairer Measure"; and if he will make a statement. [113963]

  Dr. Howells
  The response to the DTI consultation paper on up-dating and simplifying the regulation of goods sold by weight or measure has generally been favourable. I hope to make a statement in the near future about the detailed legislative changes that the Government intend to propose.

  International Price Comparisons
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for further research into international price comparisons. [114077]

  Dr. Howells
  The international price comparisons survey published on 13 February 2000 was the first time the Government have tried to compare UK prices with those in America and other European countries. My officials shall be discussing with the Office of Fair Trading, retail groups, and consumer groups the lessons that can be learned and how we develop this research in the future.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations his Department had with consumer organisations on the range of products to be included in the AC Nielsen survey into international price comparisons. [114076]

  Dr. Howells
  There were no consultations with consumer organisations on the range of products to be included in the international price comparisons survey. This was determined in close consultation with the contractor to ensure it reflected current consumer expenditure patterns.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response the Government have made to the Dresdner Kleinwort Benson report into international supermarket prices. [114081]

  Dr. Howells
  Many organisations regularly produce international comparisons of supermarket prices. While taking an interest in these, the Government do not respond on an individual basis.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what account he took of the potential for conflict of interest in deciding on an organisation to carry out a survey into international price comparisons. [114078]

  Dr. Howells
  AC Nielsen were chosen to carry out the survey into international price comparisons following a competitive bidding process in full accordance with EC procurement legislation. In choosing them the Department 122W
  took full account of the fact that they, like all market research companies, work for businesses that produce branded goods.

  EU (Cost of Living)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response the Government have made to the report by Employment Conditions Abroad on the cost of living within European Union member states. [114080]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Many organisations regularly produce reports on price levels and the cost of living in different countries. While taking interest in these, the Government do not respond to them on an individual basis.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 21 September, 20 October, 17 November, 14 December, 11 January and 8 February relating to Mr. James Gardiner, a constituent. [113929]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: My Department has no record of any such correspondence being received from the hon. Lady. If she sends me copies of her letters I will ensure that the matter is dealt with promptly.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which UK manufacturers are exempt from the requirement to provide end-user documentation in applying for export licences; and if he will make a statement; [114360]

  (2) under what circumstances UK manufacturers are not required to provide end-user documentation in applying for export licences; and if he will make a statement. [114361]

  Dr. Howells
  In almost all circumstances, applications for a Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) must be supported by appropriate end-user documentation. Where the intended consignee is a Government body, and the application is not for a licence to export chemicals listed in Schedule 2 or 3 to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to a state which has not ratified the CWC, a copy of the official Government purchase order or a copy of the relevant part of the Government contract covering the order is normally sufficient.

  An Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) is specific to an individual exporter and covers multiple shipments of specified goods to specified destinations and/or, in some cases, specified consignees. The exporter must obtain from each consignee an appropriate end-user undertaking for each export before the export takes place, or not later than one month after the date of exportation.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who was the intended recipient in(a) the Republic of Korea and (b) Singapore the military explosives or additives for which standard individual

  123W
  export licences were issued between 1 January 1999 and 21 January 2000; and if he will list the named exporter in each case. [114359]

  Dr. Howells
  The first of these licences was issued to Lancaster Synthesis Ltd. for the export of di-isopropylamine, N,N-diemethylhydrazine, triethyl phosphite and phosphorus pentachloride to Daejung Chemicals and Metals Ltd. in the Republic of Korea. The second of these licences was issued to Merck Ltd. for the export of zirconium powder to Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

  The two licensees concerned were consulted and did not object to the disclosure of this information, which I am disclosing in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Pakistan (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all arms sales to Pakistan, for which export licences have been applied for in the past year, together with the level of ECGD support provided and the costs to the British High Commissioner of promoting such sales. [113825]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 1 January 1999 and 3 March 2000,69 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and 18 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Pakistan of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List. Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings (and OIELs may also cover a range of countries). Where this is so, the licence is included in the table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Individual licences issued between 1 January 1999 and 3 March 2000 covering the export to Pakistan of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Number of OIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  ML1

  1

  0

  ML2

  1

  0

  ML3

  1

  0

  ML4

  4

  1

  ML5

  3

  1

  ML6

  5

  1

  ML9

  8

  5

  ML10

  11

  4

  ML11

  7

  5

  ML13

  0

  1

  ML15

  1

  0

  ML18

  1

  1

  ML22

  2

  2

  PL5017

  5

  1

  PL5033

  0

  1

  End use

  13

  0

  This information does not cover any Media OIELs that may have been issued during this period. Media OIELs
  124W
  authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists when working in areas of conflict.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on 27 July 1999, Official Report, columns 307–08W.

  In addition, Pakistan is a permitted destination on certain Open General Export Licences, covering the export of goods on the Military List; copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at any time during the period are in the Library of the House.

  As regards the level of ECGD support, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Trade and Industry on 8 February 2000, Official Report, column 122W.

  Finally, as regards costs to the British High Commissioner of promoting defence sales, I understand this information is not compiled.

  NTL/Cable and Wireless
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the advice of the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading on the proposed acquisition by NTL of Cable and Wireless when he publishes the report of the Competition Commission on this case. [114576]

  Dr. Howells
  In line with current practice, I do not intend to publish the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading on the proposed acquisition by NTL Incorporated of the cable business of Cable and Wireless Communications plc. However the Office of Fair Trading are looking at ways of publishing, in the future, the Director General's advice on whether to refer key mergers to the Competition Commission.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the number of sub-post offices which closed in the United Kingdom in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [114165]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that the number of sub-post office closures in their 1999–2000 financial year is not yet available. In the 1998–99 financial year, 232 sub-post offices closed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC (Compensation Claims)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what expenses have been incurred to date arising from compensation claims against the RUC in the last 10 years. [113436]

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

  News Releases
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the(a) national, (b) regional and (c) local newspapers and media bodies to which his Department sent news releases during the period 2 May 1997 to 29 February 2000. [113985]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: The information requested is as follows:

  Breakdown of media press release distribution

  National press

  News London

  David McKitterick

  ITN

  GMTV

  Reuters

  RTE

  Sky News

  BBC

  Liam Clarke

  Press Association

  UK News

  Associated Press

  Channel 5 News

  Merrick Power

  Bloomberg News

  New Dawn Publications

  TNAG

  John Murray Brown

  Jim Dee

  Sunday Times

  The Times

  T Hanna

  Nerve Amoric

  Regional Press

  Scope Magazine

  Belfast City Beat

  Eamon Maillie

  News Letter

  UTV

  Irish Times

  Ulster Press Agency

  Irish Independent

  Belfast Telegraph

  Sunday Life

  Irish News

  Downtown Radio

  Bob Rodwell

  Ed Maloney

  Alan Murray

  Democratic Dialogue

  John Simpson

  John Mullin

  Carmel McQuaid

  North West News Agency

  126W

  Chris Ryder

  Terry Dick

  Fortnight

  ONTV

  Ulsternews International

  Anne Hailes

  Shandwick

  McMillan Media

  Sunday Tribune

  Sunday World

  Farm Trader

  Farm Week

  Irish Farmers Journal

  Irish News

  News Letter

  Local Press

  Channel 9

  Q102

  Radio Ireland

  Carmah Communication

  Q97.2 Radio

  Radio Foyle

  Bangor News

  Tyrone Times

  Ulster Gazette

  Deny Journal

  Tyrone Constitution

  Ulster Herald

  Antrim Guardian

  Antrim Times

  Ballymoney Times

  Ulster Star

  Ballymena Guardian

  Banbirdge Chronicle

  Down Democrat

  Down Recorder

  Down Spectator

  Dromore Star

  Mourne Observer

  Newry Reporter

  Newtownards Chronicle

  Outlook Press

  Coleraine Chronicle

  Coleraine Times

  Ulster Television

  RTE

  Downtown Radio

  BBC NI

  Farmgate BBC Radio

  127W

  Fermanagh Herald

  Mid-Ulster Mail

  Tyrone Courier

  Derg & District News

  Roe Valley Sentinel

  Londonderry Sentinel

  Ballyclare Gazette

  Lurgan Mail

  Portadown Times

  Larne Gazette

  Ballymena Observer

  Banbridge Leader

  Carrick Times

  Carrick Advertiser

  Newtownabbey Times

  Impartial Reporter

  Northern Constitution

  Ballymena Times

  Dungannon Observer

  Strabane Weekly News

  Armagh Observer

  Cross Examiner

  Dromore Leader

  Lame Times

  Newtownards Spectator

  Tyrone Democrat.

  Public Authorities
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the bodies which he intends to designate as public authorities under section 75(3)(a) and (3)(d) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; which Departments, corporations or bodies listed in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 will not be so designated; and when he intends to make the final list public. [113560]

  Ward/school/centre

  Number of funded reception places 1

  Number of funded voluntary/private pre-school places

  Number of statutory nursery places

  Total number of funded pre-school places

  Number of P1 children

  Abbey Park

  St. Patrick's Primary School

  7

  —

  —

  7

  66

  College Farm Nursery

  —

  —

  52

  52

  —

  Downs

  Christian Brothers' Primary School

  13

  —

  —

  13

  44

  St. Malachy's Primary School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  Naiscoil Ard Macha

  —

  8

  —

  8

  —

  Dara Playgroup

  —

  18

  —

  18

  —

  Scotwell House

  —

  9

  —

  9

  —

  Callanbridge

  Mount St. Catherine's Primary School

  11

  —

  —

  11

  30

  O'Fiaich Playgroup

  —

  8

  —

  8

  —

  Early Bird Monnesson Playgroup

  —

  8

  —

  8

  —

  The Mall

  Drelimcourt Infants' Primary School

  4

  —

  —

  4

  11

  Grove Nursery School

  —

  —

  51

  51

  —

  128W
  Mr. George Howarth
  The Northern Ireland Act 1998 defines over one hundred public bodies to which the section 75 obligations already apply. However, the Secretary of State may designate additional bodies under section 75(3)(a) and (d) of the Act, including those listed in the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, to which the obligation should apply. The Parliamentary Commissioner Act lists a large number of public authorities, many of which have little or no influence in Northern Ireland.

  I have met the Equality Commission to discuss the contents of the proposed designation order. At our meeting, the Equality Commission suggested a considerable number of other bodies for inclusion in the order. We plan to consult those bodies suggested to us by the Equality Commission which carry out functions relating to Northern Ireland as part of our consideration of whether they should be designated.

  We intend to lay an order before Parliament as soon as possible which will list a number of bodies in respect of which our consultation is complete. In due course we hope a more comprehensive designation order will be drafted, for making later this year.

  Armstrong Primary School
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of(a) applicants and (b) admissions into the Armstrong Primary School in Armagh City in September 1999; what provision there is for a pre-school class at this school; at which locations in Armagh City he has approved pre-school provision; if there is an application by the Armstrong Primary School for approval of a pre-school facility; and if he will make a statement. [113685]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The total number of applicants and the total number of admissions to the Armstrong Primary School, Armagh in September 1999 was 37. This includes 22 applications for reception during the current school year as they reach their fourth birthdays. Funded pre-school education provisions exists or has been approved through the 1999–2000 Pre-School Education Development Plan for the Southern Education and Library Board area in the following settings in Armagh City.
  129W

  Ward/school/centre

  Number of funded reception places 1

  Number of funded voluntary/private pre-school places

  Number of statutory nursery places

  Total number of funded pre-school places

  Number of P1 children

  Observatory

  Armstrong Primary School

  6

  —

  —

  6

  34

  Armagh Nursery School

  —

  —

  29

  29

  —

  Royal School Prep Department

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Saints and Scholars Integrated Primary School

  28

  —

  226

  26

  22

  Total

  49

  51

  158

  250

  240

  1 Number of reception children in attendance on 31 October 1998.

  2 The reception places are due to be replaced by the nursery places in the 2000–01 school year.

  Note:

  There is currently no application by Armstrong Primary School for approval of a pre-school facility in addition to its reception group. A proposal in 1999 from the Southern area Pre-School Education Advisory Group for the establishment of a nursery unit at the school was not approved by the Department of Education.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Organic Farming
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the main obstacles to the growth of the organic farming sector. [113827]

  Mr. Morley
  As part of the Review of the Organic Farming Scheme we are commissioning a study to ascertain farmers' views on organic farming and to identify the nature and extent of the main barriers to conversion.

  Tree Felling Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 2000,Official Report, column 723W, on tree felling licences, if he will place a copy of the licence referred to in the Library. [114430]

  Mr. Morley
  I have arranged for a copy of the tree felling licence for Avon Heath Country Park to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 2000,Official Report, column 723W, on tree felling

  Year ending 31 March

  Location

  Number of trees licensed for felling

  Size of area (hectares)

  Expiry date

  1996

  Lakenheath Fen, Suffolk

  390

  3.7

  March 1988

  1997

  Nil

  —

  —

  —

  1998

  Stowborough Nature Reserve, Dorset

  200

  0.6

  April 2000

  1998

  Grange Heath, Dorset

  800

  8.0

  September 1999

  1998

  Sandy Warren, Bedfordshire

  2,680

  2.6

  February 2000

  1998

  Aldringham Walks, Suffolk

  180

  5.0

  October 1999

  1999

  Avon Heath Country Park, Dorset

  86,000

  77.9

  January 2004

  1999

  Sandy Warren, Bedfordshire

  15

  0.1

  March 2001

  2000

  Grange Heath, Dorset

  210

  0.5

  January 2004

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the preliminary guidance drawn up by the Forestry 130W
  licences, if he will identify in respect of each of the breaches the owner or organisation responsible and the nature of the breaches alleged. [114386]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: In the last five years, three owners were successfully prosecuted for breaches of tree felling licences. One owner had felled unapproved trees within the approved area; his conviction is now spent under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The other two owners, Mr. L. B. Holliday and Mr. C. A. P. Duncombe, had both felled trees outside the approved area.

  In the other breaches investigated by the Forestry Commission over the last five years the owners were not successfully prosecuted so it would not be appropriate to give their names. In each case they had either felled trees outside the approved area or felled unapproved trees within the approved area.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 7 March 2000,Official Report, columns 581–82W, on tree felling licences, what was the size and location of each area covered by the licences; and how long each licence is to remain in force. [114213]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The size, location and expiry dates of tree felling licences granted to the RSPB in each of the last five years are given in the table.

  Commission as to how its staff when considering felling licences should respond to potential conflict arising from the EU requirement to restore heathland habitats in Dorset

  131W
  and the need to retain trees as a habitat for woodland birds and as an amenity landscape feature. [114322]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The Forestry Commission's guidance to staff on this issue is given on pages 13, 14 and 29 of the Forestry Commission's publication "Lowland Heaths and Forestry", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The Commission is currently drafting more detailed guidance for its staff, and I have asked the Commission to send the hon. Member a copy of the first draft.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on how the Government intend to encourage farmers(a) to protect and maintain hedgerows and (b) to increase the number and area of field buffer strips; and if he will make a statement. [114173]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The Ministry operates a range of schemes to encourage environmentally friendly farming. The Countryside Stewardship (CSS) Scheme and the Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Scheme both provide for the planting, laying and coppicing of hedgerows. 10,000 km of hedgerows are currently managed under these schemes.

  The CSS and some of the 22 ESAs also offer incentives to create field buffer strips. The Ministry is the lead partner in the Habitat Action Plans for cereal field margins and ancient species-rich hedgerows. The announcement by the Minister on 7 December that the funding of agrienvironment schemes will be doubled over the next seven years will allow for more hedgerows and field margins to be managed under these schemes.

  Fisheries
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Committee will publish its report. [114437]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on 9 March 2000,Official Report, column 800W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 11 November and 16 December 1999 and 20 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. J. Smith. [114580]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  A reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton was sent on 13 March 2000.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will reply to the letter of 10 January from the hon. Member for Hexham about the restrictions imposed by his Department on organo-phosphate dips. [114543]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  My noble Friend the Baroness Hayman replied to the letter from the hon. Member for Hexham on 28 February.

HEALTH

  TV Patientline Cards
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to give pensioners and benefit recipients concessions for the purchase of TV Patientline cards in NHS hospitals. [103556]

  Mr. Denham
  There are televisions in most day rooms and ward bays which are provided free of charge by National Health Service trusts. Some trusts have reached agreement with the manufacturers of Patientline to offer an improved service to those patients who wish to use it. The installation and pricing policy will be a matter for agreement between the company and the NHS trust.

  Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have spent on external consultants and advisers since May 1997. [102099]

  Yvette Cooper
  Total expenditure on external consultants and advisers, by the Department of Health's agencies and non-departmental public bodies (including Special Health Authorities1), from May 1997 to 31 September 1999 is as follows:

  £ million

  Agencies

  3.08

  NDPBs

  4.38

  1 Except the National Blood Authority

  Biomedical Staff
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis he calculated the number of biomedical staff who will benefit from a 26 per cent. pay increase from April 1999. [112445]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: I regret that my answer of 31 January 2000, Official Report, column 453W in relation to the number of trainee Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers to benefit from a 26 per cent. pay offer from 1 April 1999 was incorrect.

  Trainee MLSOs will receive increases ranging between 6.6 per cent. for those on spine points 6, 7, 8 and 9 to 26 per cent. for those on spine point 1. The figures broken down are as follows, rounded to the nearest 100:

  Spine point

  Numbers of staff

  per cent. increase

  01

  100

  26

  02

  50

  22

  03

  100

  18

  04

  100

  14

  05

  100

  10.25

  06

  550

  6.6

  07

  6.6

  08

  6.6

  09

  6.6

  Spine points 01 to 06 are effectively abolished under the terms of this offer, which establishes a new 4-point spine.

  Medical Laboratory Science Officers
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many medical laboratory science officers left the NHS in each of the past 10 years; [113192]

  (2) how many people qualified as medical laboratory science officers, and how many of them went into direct employment in the NHS, in each of the last 10 years. [113199]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on numbers of medical laboratory scientific officers who qualify, join or leave National Health Service employment in each of the last 10 years is not held centrally.

  Patient Referrals
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish information about the extent to which patients in other countries have the right to select or be referred to the consultant or hospital of their choice. [113854]

  Ms Stuart
  Comprehensive information is not available within the Department.

  Drug Treatment Programmes
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce measures to encourage general practitioners to become involved in treating patients with drug addiction problems. [113954]

  Ms Stuart
  We have made available £50 million over three years for health authorities to improve treatment services for drug misusers. A priority is to develop and increase the provision of primary care, which is recognised as the ideal setting for the treatment of the basic health needs of drug misusers and problems associated with drug misuse. The Department has set the target of involving at least 20 per cent. of general practitioners in the treatment of drug misusers. Revised clinical guidelines were issued in April last year which recommend shared care as the model for treating drug misusers in primary care. The Standing Conference on Drug Abuse produced a "training pack" last year for primary care teams in support of the clinical guidelines, on behalf of the Department.

  NHS Direct
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has he made of the extent of disruption to NHS Direct Services caused by the failure of computers in the week beginning 20 February; and what action is being taken to ensure complete reliability in the telecommunications infrastructure for NHS Direct. [113180]

  Ms Stuart
  On 20 February, British Telecom had a major fault with two of the three main BT routers for 0845, 0345, 0870, 0645, 0800 link-line numbers. This left one router to carry all traffic. This British Telecom problem, over which "NHS Direct" has no control, affected many services including banks, building societies, and insurance companies, public utility emergency numbers and the Samaritans and domestic violence helplines, among others within the voluntary sector. This was the first time that this problem has occurred. "NHS Direct" on that day handled about 1,000 calls less than the number of calls expected.
  134W
  In order to communicate this problem, "NHS Direct" immediately released a press notice urging callers who were unable to get a ringing tone after trying 0845 4647 to use alternative health services.

  BT has apologised for the interruption to the service and has reassured the Department that it will not happen again.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) constituencies, (b) health authorities and (c) counties that are (i) covered and (ii) not covered by NHS Direct; and what is his timetable is for extending coverage. [113203]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: The White Paper "The New NHS; Modern, and Dependable" announced our commitment to NHS Direct. At present, NHS Direct covers 65 per cent. of the population. By the end of October this year, the whole of England will be covered. I have placed copies of the list of (a) constituencies, (b) health authorities and (c) counties that are (i) covered and (ii) not covered by NHS Direct in the Library.

  NHS Direct on-line provides users with the facility to determine whether their postcode or telephone number is covered by NHS Direct.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies he has commissioned to establish how many users, as distinct from individual calls, there are of NHS Direct. [114496]

  Ms Stuart
  We have not commissioned any studies to establish how many users, as distinct from individual calls, there are of NHS Direct.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses are employed by NHS Direct; and how many are expected to be employed once the service has achieved national coverage. [114497]

  Ms Stuart
  NHS Direct currently accounts nationally for about 600 whole-time equivalent nurses. Following the national rollout later this year, we expect the number to increase to about 1,000 nurses, a small number against the overall size of the nursing workforce (330,000 whole-time equivalent in England as of 30 September 1998).

  NHS Direct recruits nurses from a wide range of different backgrounds. Some are from a hospital background, others are from primary care or are working outside the National Health Service. NHS Direct also provides opportunities for disabled and work injured nurses. Many staff who work for NHS Direct do so on a part-time basis, allowing them to combine working for NHS Direct with other clinical duties.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Burma
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on behalf of the Karen people. [112886]
  135W
  Mr. Battle
  I am grateful that my hon. Friend has persistently raised the case of the Karens. I continue to receive a number of letters reflecting the great deal of interest amongst Parliamentarians and members of the public about ethnic minorities in Burma. We also receive representations from Burmese exiles and non-governmental organisations.

  We continue to monitor carefully the situation of ethnic minorities in Burma and along the Thai-Burma border; and to condemn violations of their human rights at every opportunity.

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support Her Majesty's Government are giving in James Mawdsley's case; and if he will make a statement on the political situation in Burma. [112905]

  Mr. Battle
  We continue to do all we properly can to ensure that James's rights are respected but we cannot intervene in the Burmese judicial process just as we would not allow them to intervene in ours.

  We remain appalled by the lack of democracy and human rights in Burma: we are at the forefront of international action to press the Burmese regime to improve the situation.

  Arms Exports
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his role in advising on approval of ECGD cover for arms exports. [112887]

  Mr. Hain
  The FCO carefully scrutinises all applications for arms sales abroad via the reformed and tightened export-licensing regime.

  Once an export licence is approved it is up to ECGD to decide whether or not to provide export credit support.

  However, stricter conditions apply in poor and heavily indebted developing countries to ensure ECGD only covers projects that clearly contribute to social and economic development. ECGD will always consult other Whitehall Departments, including FCO, to ensure these conditions are met.

  Angola
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the scale of breaches of UN sanctions against UNITA, with particular reference to breaches by neighbouring countries. [112888]

  Mr. Hain
  I am extremely concerned by any allegations of breaches of UN sanctions against UNITA, especially through South Africa, Zambia, Rwanda, Burkina Faso, Togo and Uganda.

  Iran
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Iran on the funding of Hezbullah and Hamas. [112889]
  136W
  Mr. Hain
  This Government and our EU colleagues have frequently raised with the Iranians our concerns about their support for groups who use violent methods to oppose the Middle East Peace Process and will continue to do so.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made representations to the Government of Iran on the situation of the 13 Jews arrested on charges of espionage. [112935]

  Mr. Hain
  The continued detention on espionage charges of a number of Iranians including members of the Iranian Jewish community is a matter of great concern to us. We and our EU partners have repeatedly stressed to the Iranian authorities the importance we attach to this issue. We have also stressed our belief that those detained should either be released or be granted a speedy, fair and open trial.

  The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary both raised this issue with the Iranian Foreign Minister Dr. Kharrazi during his visit in January. They pressed for the release of all those detained or for their early trial. Since then three of the detainees have been released on bail and a trial date of 13 April announced. Dr. Kharrazi said that those detained would receive a fair trial with access to lawyers and their families.

  I raised this issue with Deputy Foreign Minister Sarmadi when we met on 7 March.

  Mercenaries
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to control the hiring of mercenaries and marketing of small arms(a) within and (b) via the United Kingdom. [112890]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government deplore the use, financing and recruitment of mercenaries. We are committed to publishing a Green Paper on mercenary activity by November 2000.

  On small arms, the UK has some of the most stringent controls on firearms in the world. In order to sell, transfer or expose for sale any firearm by way of business or trade, a person must be registered with the police as a firearms dealer. All applications for licences to export small arms from the UK are rigorously assessed against our national export licensing criteria and those in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. We will not issue export licences where there is a clearly identifiable risk that the small arms might be used for internal repression or international aggression.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to commemorate the 500 anniversary of the discovery of the Island of St. Helena. [112891]

  Mr. Battle
  A contribution of £160,000 has been agreed from the FCO towards a new much larger museum that will also house the national archives and so tell the story of St. Helena's 500 year history more professionally and comprehensively. Work will start this week and will be completed in time for the quincentenary celebrations in 2002.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what conditions the British Government will support Bosnia-Herzegovina's application for membership of the Council of Europe. [112892]

  Mr. Vaz
  The British Government have supported in principle Bosnia and Herzegovina's membership of the Council of Europe since its application in December 1998. But we believe that Bosnia and Herzegovina must be able to meet the basic commitments and obligations arising from membership. The Council of Europe has set down 12 central preconditions for Bosnia and Herzegovina's membership. It is clear that further progress is still needed towards the requirements set down by the Council of Europe, particularly in areas such as the functioning of the state-level institutions and the passage of an Election Law. We are continuing to assist Bosnia and Herzegovina in its efforts to meet these requirements and have recently given £50,000 to the Council of Europe for additional assistance to Bosnia and Herzegovina specifically for this purpose.

  Cyprus
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an official visit to Cyprus. [112893]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have no plans to visit Cyprus at present. But my Special Representative for Cyprus, Sir David Hannay, concludes a visit to the island today.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Pakistan concerning the restrictions on the reporting of the trial of the former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif. [112894]

  Mr. Hain
  From the outset, we have urged on the Pakistani authorities the need for a fair and transparent trial for Nawaz Sharif and his co-defendants. We have made clear that there should be no "show trials". Members of EU missions in Karachi attend each court hearing, as do representatives of the national and international media.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about the middle east peace process. [112895]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I are in frequent contact with all the parties to the Middle East Peace Process. Most recently, for example, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had discussions with Nabil Shaath, Palestinian Minister for Planning and International Co-ordination, Yossi Beilin, Israeli Minister for Justice and Farouk a-Shara'a, Syrian Foreign Minister. In recent days, I myself have discussed the Middle East Peace Process with Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israeli Minister for Internal Security, and received a group of Arab Ambassadors in London.

  European Security and Defence Initiative
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the United States Secretary of State about the European Security and Defence Initiative. [112896]

  Mr. Vaz
  The United States Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discuss European Defence on a regular basis, most recently during his visit to Washington on 8–10 February 2000. Mrs. Albright follows developments closely, and continues firmly to support our efforts to build a NATO-friendly crisis management capability in the EU.

  Congo
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his steps to bring peace to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [112897]

  Mr. Hain
  Bringing peace to DRC matters to Britain. That is why we are actively supporting the Lusaka Agreement. It provides a realistic peace formula. So our aim is to make it work and to keep DRC on the international agenda.

  At the Security Council meetings in December and January, and in bilateral discussions with all those involved, I made clear that Britain would back all those determined to make Lusaka work: with finance, practical help, people on the ground and political support. I encouraged others to follow suit.

  And if we all play our part in driving the process forward; if there is sustained international support; if the parties to the conflict work for peace, Lusaka can be implemented.

  Nigeria
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the political situation in Nigeria. [112898]

  Mr. Hain
  We welcome the strong start that the government of President Obasanjo has made since taking office in May 1999 and his commitment to reform. There are many serious challenges ahead for Nigeria. Britain will continue to support Nigeria's reform programme.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with the new Argentine administration about the Falklands Islands. [112899]

  Mr. Battle
  We have established a good working relationship with the new Argentine Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has met President De la Rua twice. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has met Rodriguez Giavarini. I attended the Argentine Presidential inauguration and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has met the Argentine President and Defence Minister.
  139W
  On these and other occasions both sides have reaffirmed their commitment to the Joint Statement of July 1999 and to continue our dialogue on issues of common interest.

  This does not affect our sovereignty of the Falkland Islands or our commitment to the Islanders' rights to determine their own future.

  East Timor
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions Her Majesty's Government have held with the Australian and New Zealand Governments on the situation in East Timor. [112900]

  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Australian and New Zealand Governments about the situation in East Timor. [112902]

  Mr. Battle
  We hold regular discussions with the Australian and New Zealand Governments on a range of issues, including East Timor. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I held talks with the Australian Foreign Minister during his visit to London in January, and I visited Australia from 21–26 February and New Zealand from 27 February to 2 March for discussions with members of both Governments. We will continue to work together to ensure the transition of East Timor to a new democracy.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support Her Majesty's Government are providing for institution-building in East Timor. [112901]

  Mr. Battle
  We are working closely with the UN Transitional Administration (UNTAET) to help East Timor prepare for statehood. We have committed a total of £19.71 million to help with humanitarian relief, reconstruction and institution-building. In addition 14 British policemen and four military liaison officers are serving in UNTAET. We look forward to seeing East Timor emerge as the first new democracy of the 21st century.

  Palestinian Refugees
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the status of Palestinian refugees. [112903]

  Mr. Hain
  Both the status and the condition of Palestinian refugees are of great importance to us. We support UN General Assembly Resolution 194. Our contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, bilaterally through the EU, make us the largest EU donor and second largest country donor.

  Palestine
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to assist the Palestinian authority to build democratic and accountable institutions. [112904]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK's programme of assistance to the Palestinians includes several projects to strengthen their institutions and promote good governance. For example 140W
  the FCO fund the Palestinian rights Programme which is the largest FCO human rights programme anywhere in the world. DfID are also providing technical and legal assistance to the Palestinian Authority, for example to the Ministry of Economy and Trade to help prepare trade negotiations.

  Colombia
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent Human Rights Watch report on conditions in Colombia. [112906]

  Mr. Battle
  We have considered the recent Human Rights Watch report carefully.

  The allegations in this report are serious, particularly those of collusion between the Armed Forces and the paramilitaries.

  We are encouraged by assurances from the Colombian Government that it is taking steps to address these issues. We will continue to follow this closely.

  China
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with China. [112907]

  Mr. Battle
  China is an important and growing presence in the world, with which we need to engage. We have a good and wide ranging relationship with China, which is not just political and commercial, but includes areas such as culture, education and science and technology. Engagement with the Chinese at all levels enables us to promote our interests in these areas and to raise our concerns about human rights and other sensitive issues.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the proposed resolution on China, to be tabled at the 56th United Nations Commission on Human Rights; [114420]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of co-sponsoring a resolution on China at the 56th United Nations Commission on Human Rights. [114422]

  Mr. Battle
  We are aware that the United States intends to table a resolution critical of China at the forthcoming 56th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. We are considering policy towards the resolution, including a position on co-sponsorship, with EU partners, as was the case in 1999. The matter will be discussed at the General Affairs Council on 21 March.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK's relations with Mozambique. [112884]

  Mr. Hain
  UK/Mozambique relations are close and friendly, and the UK has been at the forefront of the emergency relief effort following floods and future development assistance.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further efforts he is making to encourage a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Sri Lanka between Government forces and the Tamil Tigers. [113653]

  Mr. Hain
  We take every opportunity at bilateral meetings to stress the need for a political settlement to end the conflict in Sri Lanka. We have made clear that we stand ready to help if both sides ask us to play a role.

  Embassies
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings have been held within his Department to consider his plan to change the name of British embassies to United Kingdom embassies; and what was the cost of holding these meetings. [113845]

  Mr. Hain
  No meetings were held to discuss this. We have no plans to stop using 'British' in describing our diplomatic missions overseas. British Embassies will continue to be known as British Embassies.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the cost of changing the name of the British Embassy in the United States of America to the United Kingdom Embassy. [113846]

  Mr. Hain
  There are no plans to change the name of the British Embassy in the United States of America. I would be opposed to any such change.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the cost of implementing his plan to change the name of British Embassies to United Kingdom Embassies. [113844]

  Mr. Hain
  We have no plans to stop using "British" in describing our diplomatic missions overseas. British Embassies will continue to be known as British Embassies.

  Balkans
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from(a) the US State Department and (b) the EU partner countries on the political and security situation in (i) Kosovo, (ii) Montenegro and (iii) Serbia. [113875]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: We are in frequent regular contact with the US Government and with our EU partners on the political and security situations in Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit(a) Kosovo and (b) Montenegro. [113869]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no present plans to visit Kosovo or Montenegro.

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made to measures in place against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [114824]

  Mr. Vaz
  The European Union's ECOFIN Council on 28 February adopted a Common Position and Council Decision implementing changes to the EU sanctions regime on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which had been agreed at the General Affairs Council on 14 February. Council Decision 2000/177/CFSP introduced, with immediate effect, a revised and expanded list of FRY citizens (representing an increase to a total of 794 names) against whom the EU visa ban applies, and Common Position 2000/176/CFSP suspended the EU flight ban on the FRY for a period of six months. The suspension of the flight ban will come into effect when the necessary amendments have been made to the relevant Council regulations. In parallel we are working with our partners to tighten up the implementation of financial sanctions targeted against the regime.

  Further to the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd)—the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—on 13 July 1999, Official Report, columns 141–42W, the Government have decided to introduce a case by case approach to consideration of export licence applications for dual use goods to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia including Kosovo and Montenegro. There are humanitarian developmental and commercial reasons for doing so and it brings us into line with the practice of our major partners. Reconstruction in Kosovo is crucial to the province's development and the UK contribution to Kosovo could potentially be hindered without a change in practice. Applications will be considered consistent with the national export licensing criteria announced in July 1997 and those in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. We will not approve any dual use goods licence applications which could benefit the armed forces, internal security forces or similar entities of the authorities in Belgrade.

  Overseas Embassies (Staff)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the employees working in embassies overseas paid for by business, indicating in each case(a) the name of the employee, (b) the business providing the financial support, (c) the level of financial support and (d) the embassy. [114421]

  Mr. Hain
  Since 1979, the FCO has arranged 56 secondments to British diplomatic missions overseas from 40 private sector organisations. In line with HMG's policy of increased interchange with the private sector as part of the Modernising Government agenda, there are at present eight private sector secondees at posts overseas, primarily in the US and the Far East. A further 14 secondments were completed over the last year. These include substantive secondments of up to four years and short-term attachments of 3–6 months under the Short Term Business Attachment Scheme. In all cases, the secondees are bound by Diplomatic Service Regulations relating to conduct and discipline, and are answerable to the head of the diplomatic post at which they are serving.
  143W
  It would not be appropriate to list the names of individual secondees.

  Panchen Lama
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to establish whether the Panchen Lama is alive. [114111]

  Mr. Battle
  We remain concerned about the absence of any independent verification of the whereabouts of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the Dalai Lama's choice as Panchen Lama. We regularly urge the Chinese authorities to allow access by diplomats or an independent figure to confirm his state of health and living conditions. I raised the matter with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, Wang Yingfan, in Beijing on 9 November 1999, and was given a written assurance that reports that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima had died were not accurate and that he was alive and well. We also raised the Gedhun's case during the fourth round of the UK/China bilateral human rights dialogue in February and received similar assurances. We will continue to press for independent access.

  Egypt
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received from the Egyptian Government regarding the grounds for the charges brought against Father Gabriel Abdel-Massesh Gabriel following the sectarian violence in Al-Kosheh. [114590]

  Mr. Hain
  Following the violence in Al-Kosheh, it was announced that Father Gabriel Abdel-Massesh Gabriel had been charged with attempted murder and illegal possession of weapons. He was released on bail. The Egyptian Public Prosecutor's Office has now concluded its report on the incident. At a press conference on 11 March the Public Prosecutor reportedly confirmed that no religious leaders would be charged.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK's relations with Egypt. [112870]

  Mr. Hain
  The British Government have a strong relationship with the government of President Mubarak and UK/Egypt trade relations continue to grow.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made in setting up a local Kosovo police force. [113874]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: So far 349 recruits have graduated from the OSCE Police Training School in Kosovo. A third course of 250 students began their initial training on 22 February 2000. This group consisted of 217 Albanians, 22 Serbs and 11 other minority members.

  All students undergo nine weeks of basic police training instruction. This consists of both classroom training and practical exercises in democratic policing, legal affairs, patrol duties, firearms, administration, defensive tactics, crime investigation, forensics and traffic control. Following this, each student undergoes a further
  144W
  17 weeks of field training with an UNMIK police officer and an additional 80 hours of advanced classroom training. Having successfully completed the three phases of instruction, each recruit is eligible for certification and independent assignment.

  The OSCE training mandate is to develop and deliver basic police training for approximately 3,500 police recruits within the next 16 months.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to him by experts on the level of international police numbers in Kosovo. [114577]

  Mr. Hain
  The Secretary-General has determined that the number of civilian police officers required for UNMIK is 4,718. The UN has consistently underlined the urgency of reaching that number soon. The only other representation received by the UK is that from the European SecretaryGeneral/High Representative, Mr. Javier Solana, as set out in my answer of 6 March 2000,Official Report, column 500W.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2000,Official Report, column 501W, on which two dates the UN Secretariat requested additional police officers for the international peacekeeping effort in Kosovo. [114692]

  Mr. Hain
  The UN Secretariat issued requests for police officers for Kosovo on 11 June and 18 November 1999.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the number of(a) international police officers and (b) UK police officers in Kosovo is sufficient to ensure security in the province. [114578]

  Mr. Hain
  We share the UN Secretary-General's assessment of the number of international police officers required to ensure security in Kosovo. Until the full police strength is achieved, KFOR is offering assistance in this area.

  To date, the UN have requested 120 UK police officers for Kosovo. We have been able to respond positively to this request, and hope to deploy the remainder of the contingent to the region in the near future.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2000,Official Report, column 501W, concerning the UN Secretariat's requests for more police officers for Kosovo, for how many police officers the UN Secretariat asked on (a) the first and (b) the second occasion; and how many police officers the United Kingdom offered in response to each request. [114691]

  Mr. Hain
  On both occasions, the UN Secretariat requested 60 UK police officers. The UK has met the first request in full, and 60 police officers have been in Kosovo since November 1999. In order to meet the second request, the UK is identifying 60 suitable officers for deployment in the near future.

  "Europe Day"
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral answer
  145W
  of 15 February 2000, Official Report, column 759, if he will set out the terms of reference and budget for "Europe Day" on 9 May. [114147]

  Mr. Vaz
  The FCO will mark "Europe Day" this year with a Europe-focused open day on 9 May. This will launch a series of 12 open days, on successive Tuesdays between May and June of this year. Each will focus on a different aspect of the FCO's work.

  The FCO's series of "open days" form part of the London String of Pearls Millennium Festival, a year long event involving 60 historic buildings along the Thames. These will open their doors to the public in order to celebrate the social, political and cultural achievement of the last Millennium.

  The FCO's "Europe Day" event aims to make the UK public more aware of the culture of our European neighbours, and of Britain's place in Europe.

  The budget for this event is £40,000.

  Iraq
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the criteria used by his Department to decide the number of people travelling to Iraq on the flight organised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway). [114134]

  Mr. Hain
  The hon. Member for Kelvin applied for clearance for a humanitarian flight carrying medical supplies to Iraq. On receipt of a passenger list containing 207 names, I advised the hon. Member that the practice of the UN Sanctions Committee indicated that a humanitarian flight with this number of passengers was unlikely to receive Sanctions Committee approval. The hon. Member reduced the number of passengers to 29 on 6 March. The flight application was then submitted to the UN Sanctions Committee, which approved the flight on 8 March.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) was told that his original plans for the flight to Iraq were not acceptable to his Department. [114133]

  Mr. Hain
  On receipt of a passenger list containing 207 names, I advised the hon. Member for Kelvin on 4 March that, because of the large number of passengers on what was a humanitarian flight, it was unlikely that the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq would approve the flight application. The hon. Member reduced the number of passengers to 29 on 6 March. The application for the flight and its cargo of medicine was then submitted to the UN Sanctions Committee, which approved the flight on 8 March in time for it to proceed.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) meetings and (b) discussions which have taken place between the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and (i) Ministers and (ii) officials in his Department, regarding the proposed flight to Iraq. [114232]
  146W
  Mr. Hain
  I and my officials have been in regular contact with the hon. Member for Kelvin since January regarding the proposed flight to Iraq. On my recommendation it was given clearance by the UN Sanctions Committee. But for reasons best known to himself, the hon. Member decided not to proceed.

  Ministerial Visit (Loughborough)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral answer of 15 February 2000,Official Report, column 759, when the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) will visit Loughborough; and what other towns and cities he plans to visit and on what dates. [114145]

  Mr. Vaz
  I plan to visit several cities in the next few months, including Reading on 26 May. I have also written to local councils in Liverpool, Norwich, Leeds and Southampton to ask for their support in organising Europe Days during May and June. I hope to visit a number of other towns and cities, including Loughborough, later in the year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Maternity Pay
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer of increasing Statutory Maternity Pay at 90 per cent. of earnings to 18 weeks, but restricting the additional entitlement to those women not paying the higher rate tax. [113660]

  Mr. Bayley
  The estimated cost of increasing Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) at 90 per cent. of earnings to 18 weeks but, restricting the additional entitlement to women not paying higher rate tax, is an additional full year cost of £460 million.

  Note:

  This estimate is based on the Government Actuary's Department projection of 2000–01 average case load of SMP.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he plans to make with regard to(a) savings and (b) capital held by claimants applying for means-tested benefits. [113962]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Pensions Green Paper outlined our commitment to looking at ways to better reward savers. We will bring forward our proposals later in the Parliament.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the(a) local authorities which have contracted out the administration of Housing Benefit and (b) companies contracted by each authority for this work. [112651]

  Angela Eagle
  As there is no formal requirement on local authorities to inform the Department that Housing Benefit administration has been contracted out, comprehensive data are not available. Such information as is available is set out in the table:
  147W

  Local authority

  Contractor

  Barrow-in-Furness

  CSL

  Bexley

  Capita Business Services

  Brent

  Electronic Data Services Ltd.

  Bromley

  Capita Business Services

  Broxbourne

  W. S. Atkins

  Croydon

  CSL

  Ealing

  Vertex Datasciences Ltd.

  East Cambridgeshire

  Capita Business Services

  Hackney

  ITNet

  Havant

  Capita Business Services

  Horsham

  Seimens Business Services

  Hounslow

  ITNet

  Islington

  ITNet

  Lambeth

  Capita Business Services

  Mendip

  Capita Business Services

  North Somerset

  CSL

  Rother

  CSL

  Sheffield

  CSL

  South Bucks

  ITNet

  South Oxfordshire

  CSL

  Southwark

  CSL

  Taunton Deane

  CSL

  Westminster

  Capita Business Services

  West Devon

  Capita Business Services

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total estimated saving from Single Room Rent restrictions(a) in total and (b) in London for each year since 1996; and how many people have been subject to these restrictions in each year. [114099]

  Angela Eagle
  When the Single Room Rent restriction was introduced, the estimated yearly savings, which took little account of behavioural changes, for 1996–97,1997–98 and 1998–99 were £13/£57/£62 million respectively. However, we are unable to provide actual savings because there is insufficient quantitative information to assess how this group as a whole responded to the change.

  Because of the number of reasons which could limit the contractual rent, on which data are not held, it is not possible to estimate the savings from Housing Benefit restrictions.

  The measures which limit the rent for Housing Benefit purposes are:
  certain service charges included in the contractual rent which are not generally eligible for Housing Benefit, for example, charges for cleaning, laundry, fuel, meals and personal care and nursing;
  the range of determinations, including determinations of single room rents, made by rent officers in respect of most claims from tenants living in the private rented sector; and
  where local authorities consider that the rent is unreasonably high or the accommodation overlarge or the eligible rent is none the less too high in respect of a particular case.

  Such information as is available is contained in the table:

  Date

  Numbers assessed under the Single Room Rent restriction rules

  May 1997

  30,000

  May 1998

  32,000

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Annual Summary Statistics May 1998.
  148W
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the total estimated savings from Housing Benefit restrictions(a) in total and (b) in London for the period 1994–95 to 1998–99; [114098]

  (2) how many households with children were subject to Housing Benefit restrictions as a consequence of rent restrictions in 1997,1998 and 1999; [114095]

  (3) how many households on income support were subject to restrictions of Housing Benefit entitlement (a) in total and (b) in each London borough in 1997–98 and 1998–99. [114097]

  Angela Eagle
  Because of the number of reasons which could limit the contractual rent, on which data are not held, it is not possible to estimate the savings from Housing Benefit restrictions.

  The measures which limit the rent for Housing Benefit purposes are:
  certain service charges included in the contractual rent which are not generally eligible for Housing Benefit, for example, charges for cleaning, laundry, fuel, meals and personal care and nursing;
  the range of determinations, including determinations of single room rents, made by rent officers in respect of most claims from tenants living in the private rented sector; and
  where local authorities consider that the rent is unreasonably high or the accommodation overlarge or the eligible rent is none the less too high in respect of a particular case.

  Under the current arrangements, Rent Officers are required to make rental determinations in respect of claims from most tenants living in the deregulated private rented sector. These determinations restrict the rent for a variety of reasons. We do not centrally collect information on individuals' contractual rent and are unable to provide the information for specific household compositions.

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has(a) carried out and (b) commissioned on the effects of single room rent restriction on the accessibility of housing for those aged 18 to 24 years; and if he will make a statement on the findings of such research. [114517]

  Angela Eagle
  In 1997, the Department of Social Security and the Department of the Environment Transport and Regions (DETR) commissioned the London Research Centre to explore the role of Housing Benefit in the private rented sector. In particular, the study sought to investigate the impact of the single room rent and local reference rent. The study included interviews with young people who had their Housing Benefit restricted under the single room rent rules, as well as with other tenants, landlords, Housing Benefit Officers and Rent Officers. The report was published by DETR in April 1999, with the title 'Housing Benefit and the Private Rented Sector'.

  The findings of the report concluded that the single room rent restriction is causing difficulties for some young people under 25 years in accessing and maintaining accommodation. We are considering the future of the single room rent as part of our wider review of housing. We will be taking account of all the available research which will include the localised reports we received from a variety of organisations on the effects of the single room rent.
  149W
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of implementing the housing benefit verification framework; and what estimates have been made of the savings in housing benefit costs through fraud reduction. [114103]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government have made available £100 million to enable all local authorities to implement the Verification Framework. By the end of 1999–2000 we expect to have spent over £34.5 million funding the implementation of the Verification Framework in 229 local authorities. Some authorities will have received set-up costs, some will have received continuing costs and some will have received both set-up and continuing costs.

  Although it is too early to draw firm conclusions about the impact of the implementation of the Framework on savings in Housing Benefit costs the increasing number of authorities implementing the Framework will make an important contribution towards reducing the estimated £840 million lost each year through fraud and error in Housing and Council Tax Benefit claims. A robust approach to checking at the outset and during the life of a claim will prevent fraudulent claims from entering the system and will detect fraud at the earliest point during the life of a claim. Initial views from local authorities that are fully compliant with the Framework indicate that its implementation has already led to the prevention and detection of a considerable amount of fraudulent claims.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has assessed and what monitoring is being undertaken, of the impact of the housing benefit verification framework on(a) the overall level of housing benefit claims, (b) the level of housing benefit claims from pensioners and (c) the time taken to process new and repeat claims for housing benefit. [114102]

  Angela Eagle
  All local authorities are required to provide Housing Benefit management information. In addition, local authorities fully compliant with the Framework provide Verification Framework management information. This information will enable us to measure the impact of the introduction of the Framework. At present we only have initial views and anecdotal information concerning a limited number of local authorities.

  We are currently examining, and we will continue to monitor, the impact of the Verification Framework on the number of Housing Benefit claims, the overall Housing Benefit caseload and the time taken to process claims. As part of our on-going evaluation of the Framework we will examine the number of pensioners receiving Housing Benefit.

  As soon as robust evidence becomes available the Department will consider publishing this in the usual way.

  ONE Pilot Scheme
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) who employs the personal advisers working in the ONE pilot area currently being run by the Reed/Shaw Trust; [114230]

  (2) from which organisations personal advisers in the ONE pilot areas run by the Reed/Shaw Trust are on secondment. [114231]
  150W
  Angela Eagle
  Reed in Partnership Ltd. is leading a consortium (also comprising the Shaw Trust, Nat West Bank plc and SEMA Group Ltd.) to deliver the ONE pilot in North Nottinghamshire. Their teams of Personal Advisers are staffed by direct employees from Reed in Partnership Ltd., and also by staff on voluntary secondment from the Employment Service, the Benefits Agency, and Ashfield District Council.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what training in adjudication has been given to the personal advisers in the ONE pilot scheme. [114229]

  Angela Eagle
  Personal advisers are not trained to adjudicate on benefit entitlement which is the responsibility of fully trained officers of the Benefits Agency or relevant local authority. From 3 April, the personal advisers will decide whether a client has fulfilled the new requirement to take part in a work-focused meeting as part of the normal claims process.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the margin of error of the statistics being used to measure(a) Jobseeker's Allowance, (b) Income Support and (c) Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance for his Department's Public Service Agreement. [114671]

  Angela Eagle
  There is 95 per cent. confidence that the true figure for fraud and error for Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support individually is within 8 per cent. of the estimate.

  There is 95 per cent. confidence that the true figure for fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance combined in the Public Service Agreement are within 5 per cent. of the estimate.

  Landlords
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if a representative sample of landlords is included in the current area benefit review. [114670]

  Angela Eagle
  The review's objective is to measure the extent of losses due to fraud and error, including fraud involving landlords, in Housing Benefit paid with Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based). The sample to be reviewed is therefore made up of a random selection of Housing Benefit claimants including those whose benefit is paid direct to their landlord. The results will give us a representative value for the amount lost through landlord fraud.

  Pensions
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will seek to amend the Pensions Act 1995 to ensure that the remit of the trustees of a pension scheme includes improving the level of protection of the interests of employees. [112865]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have no plans to amend the Pensions Act in this respect. Under Trust Law pension scheme trustees already have a fiduciary duty to act in the best
  151W
  interests of the beneficiaries of the scheme, including those members who are employees of the sponsoring employer.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service has referred to the Pensions Ombudsman in the last year for which figures are available; and of these how many were upheld and subsequently enforced. [112864]

  Mr. Rooker
  In the year ending 31 March 1999, the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service (OPAS) recommended 170 complainants take their case to the Pensions Ombudsman. OPAS suggested that a further 73 complainants, where the evidence was inconclusive, might consider taking their case to the Pensions Ombudsman. Of the 510 cases determined by the Pensions Ombudsman in the year to 31 March 1999, 122 of those upheld had been referred by OPAS.

  It is expected that the determinations of the Pensions Ombudsman will be complied with. Determinations are enforceable by the complainant by means of a County Court order. The Pensions Ombudsman will assist in this procedure if necessary but is not able to keep records as to the total number of cases that have been enforced. There were no Court applications with which he assisted in the year to 31 March 1999.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he will take to ensure all pension schemes are compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [112861]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department for Education and Employment has published a Code of Practice which provides practical guidance for anyone with duties under the Act's employment provisions, including managers and trustees of occupational pension schemes.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many grievances about occupational pension schemes have been considered by the Pensions Ombudsman in the last year for which figures are available. [112863]

  Mr. Rooker
  In the year to 31 March 1999, the Pensions Ombudsman's office received 3,067 inquiries. The majority of these inquiries (1,940) were either referred back to the scheme to undergo the internal dispute resolution procedure or on to the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service or the appropriate regulatory authority. 719 cases were accepted for investigation. In addition, 624 cases were already being investigated at the start of the year. The Pensions Ombudsman issued 510 determinations in the year to 31 March 1999.

  Source:

  The Pensions Ombudsman's annual report 1998–99.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what cases of complaint to the(a) Office of the Pensions Advisory Service and (b) the Pensions Ombudsman, have involved breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [112867]

  Mr. Rooker
  No complaints specifically involving breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act have been received by either the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service or the Pensions Ombudsman. Both organisations are aware that a small number of individuals may make reference to this Act in support of complaints about other 152W
  pensions matters. However, neither office keeps statistics on the number of complaints that refer to the Disability Discrimination Act.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reports he has received as a result of monitoring and evaluating pension schemes of failures to comply with the Pensions Act 1995. [112866]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA) is responsible for securing compliance with those provisions of the Pensions Act 1995 which govern the running of occupational pension schemes. As required by section 2 of that Act, the Secretary of State receives annual reports from the Chairman of OPRA about the activities of the Authority and lays them before Parliament.

  The reports include detailed information and statistics relating to the investigations undertaken by OPRA in the last financial year, the numbers of investigations opened and closed, referrals to the Police and the Serious Fraud Office, and the nature of the penalties imposed by OPRA on those found to have failed to comply with the provisions of the Pensions Act. Copies of the three reports received to date, covering the financial years from 1996–97 to 1998–99, are in the Library.

  Benefit Savings Scheme
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount of the Security and Control Programme funding for the weekly benefit savings scheme for each year between 1996 and 1999. [114589]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Security and Control Program (S and CP) funding from 1996 to 1999 is shown in the table:

  £ million

  Year

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  S and CP Funding

  106.5

  164

  246

  264

  Note:

  Figures are the audited figures validated by the NAO. (As reported in the NAO Report on Vote 1 Appropriation Account 1995–96 to 1998–99).

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Conduct
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Chancellor of the Exchequer sought his advice on whether the circumstances in which he acquired a flat from AGB Research Ltd. in 1992 presented a possible conflict of interest with his present role in Her Majesty's Government. [104669]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the operation of the Ministerial Code, with particular reference to actual or apparent conflicts of interest between Ministers' public duties and private interests in relation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's purchase of a flat which had been owned by AGB Research Ltd. [104671]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what days to date all available tickets for the Millennium Dome have been sold; and what was the attendance on those days. [110464]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: All available tickets were sold from 1 to 3 January, from 18 to 26 February and on 28 February. Attendances on those days were as follows:

  1 January: 11,190

  2 January: 22,252

  3 January: 21,718

  18 February: 27,000

  19 February: 24,700

  20 February: 26,200

  21 February: 27,621

  22 February: 27,508

  23 February: 25,825

  24 February: 26,443

  25 February: 25,984

  26 February: 24,757

  28 February: 24,969.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the total sum that has been paid by the New Millennium Experience Company since the commencement of the Millennium Dome project in compensation to contractors and designers whose employment or contracts have been terminated by the NMEC. [110917]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: No termination payments have been made by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) to contractors or designers.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what are the most recent attendance figures for the New Millennium Experience. [113446]

  Janet Anderson
  The Millennium Dome welcomed its one millionth visitor on Saturday 4 March. There were 569,538 visitors to the Millennium Dome in February and 366,420 in January, an increase of 55 per cent.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will invite Jean-Marie Gerbeaux to contribute his expertise to the operation of the Millennium Dome. [113505]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: It is for the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) to decide what expertise it requires.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many Millennium Dome tickets have been sold through National Lottery terminals. [112860]

  Janet Anderson
  At 29 February, 289,071 tickets for the Millennium Dome had been sold through National Lottery terminals.

  31 December 2000
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has for celebrating the start of the new millennium on 31 December 2000. [111802]

  Janet Anderson
  The Millennium Commission was set up to fund projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium. The Millennium Festival is running throughout the year 2000 and includes events scheduled for new year's eve 2000. In addition, smaller grants are still available to community organisations who can plan millennial celebrations for their villages and towns on 31 December 2000.

  Select Committee Report
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at what time on 2 March he(a) received a copy of the Fourth report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee (HC164) and (b) finalised the content of his Department's press notice No. 49/2000. [113777]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a Confidential Final Revise copy of the Fourth Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee shortly after 2.00pm on 2 March. The Departmental press notice was issued shortly after 3.00pm on the same day.

  Athletics Venues
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those organisations and individuals outside his Department whom he met in the week beginning 28 February to discuss venues for major athletics events and related issues; and at what time and on what date those meetings were held. [113778]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had no meetings in that week to discuss venues for major athletics events. I met David Moorcroft and Adam Walker from UK Athletics at 2.30pm on 1 March 2000 in my office at DCMS about a range of issues including, possible venues for major athletics events including the 2005 World Athletics Championships.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions his Department has had with(a) Sheffield City Council, (b) Gateshead Council, (c) the City of Edinburgh Council and (d) the Scottish Executive about a national athletics stadium; and if he will make a statement. [113818]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: My Department has had no discussions with representatives from City Councils at Sheffield, Gateshead, Edinburgh or the Scottish Executive about a national athletics stadium.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the location of a national athletics stadium; [114178]

  (2) if he will make a statement about his policy on the selection of a venue for a British bid to stage the 2005 World Athletics Championships; [113761]
  155W
  (3) if he will make a statement about his Department's consideration of Twickenham Stadium as a venue for (a) the World Athletics Championships in 2005 and (b) track and field events and opening and closing ceremonies during a London Olympic Games. [113760]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answers 13 March 2000]: Sport England is, together with UK Sport, UK Athletics, the BOA and the Department, undertaking further work on non-Wembley options for staging international athletics events. The Rugby Football Union (RFU) proposed that Twickenham might be used for such events and constructive discussions have taken place between my Department, Sport England, UK Athletics, the BOA, the RFU and the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. Sport England have, in discussion with the parties above, drawn together further information and evaluation criteria and a further announcement will be made shortly.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about his Department's discussions with Manchester City Council about a national athletics stadium. [113937]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I met a delegation from Manchester City Council on 19 January 2000 led by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), to discuss proposals for holding the 2005 World Athletics Championships. This presentation was followed up by my officials and Sport England who discussed the proposals further with the Chief Executive of Manchester City Council. However, the decision by UK Athletics to submit a London bid for the 2005 World Athletics Championships and the BOA confirming that it will only consider a London based Olympic bid has effectively ruled out Manchester as an option for a national athletics venue. I also understand that the delay caused by redesigning the Manchester stadium upgrade to host the World Athletics Championships could have put the 2002 Commonwealth Games in jeopardy.

  Sports Institute
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about progress in the development of Crystal Palace as a London site for the United Kingdom Sports Institute. [113945]

  Kate Hoey
  Sport England is considering Crystal Palace as a potential site for an English Institute of Sport Network Centre. A major component of the London Centre will be provision for athletics training.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria determine the removal for disposal of documents from the Public Record Office; how many were so disposed of in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [114109]

  Mr. Lock
  The criteria which determine the removal for disposal of documents, which have been selected for permanent preservation and have been accessioned into 156W
  the national collection at the Public Record Office, are governed by section 4 (3) of the Public Records Act 1958, which states:
  "The Lord Chancellor may at any time direct that public records shall be transferred from the Public Record Office to a place of deposit appointed under this section or from such a place of deposit to the Public Record Office, or another place of deposit".

  This provision has usually been employed to allow public records which are primarily of local or specialist interest to be transferred to the appropriate local authority record office or specialist archive. These institutions must be approved placed of deposit and are required to have suitable facilities for the safekeeping, preservation and inspection by the public of the records concerned.

  In the calendar year 1999, no public records were transferred from the Public Record Office.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals were being used in the UK for scientific experiments on 1 March. [113833]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Records are not held in such a way as to identify the overall number of animals used in procedures on any one day.

  The Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals (Great Britain 1998) provides a great deal of information on the numbers of animals used including the total number of animals per species used each year. Figures for 1999 are in the process of being collated and are due to be published in the summer.

  Home Detention Curfew
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each year that figures are available what percentage of the prisoners released on licence under home detention curfew were(a) juveniles and (b) young offenders. [113915]

  Mr. Boateng
  From 28 January 1999 to 31 January 2000, 15.5 per cent. of those prisoners placed on Home Detention Curfew were under the age of 21. Of these, none was aged under 18, as Home Detention Curfew does not apply to prisoners under the age of 18.

  Harlan Animal Breeding Centre
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will release the unpublished sections of the investigation into the operations of the Harlan UK animal breeding centre in Belton, North West Leicestershire. [114310]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Blanked out areas of the text in the report which I placed in the Library on 8 March represent points bearing on commercial sensitivity, personal safety or confidentiality agreements entered into by the Home Office with the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) at the outset of our investigation.
  157W
  It is my wish to publish a fuller version of the report, but I cannot do so without the agreement of the BUAV to waive its confidentiality agreement. We are awaiting a final response from the BUAV on this point. They have agreed to waive a couple of the lines out of the ninety lines blanked out and are considering whether they will lift the restrictions on the rest of the blanked out sections of the report.

  Visitor Bond Scheme
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a bond scheme for visitors to the UK from areas other than South Africa; and if he will make a statement. [113941]

  Mrs. Roche
  We have not yet decided where to run the pilot scheme. A bond scheme can, however, operate only in countries whose nationals require a visa prior to travelling here. As South African nationals do not require prior entry clearance, consideration is not being given to operating the pilot there.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the Government's response to the consultation on its proposal for a bond scheme for visitors to the UK. [113940]

  Mrs. Roche
  An announcement about the results of the consultation process will be made in due course. We will also publish our proposals for the scheme when they are finalised. These will take account of all the representations made to us, including those in response to the consultation document.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the responses to the consultation process on a bond scheme for visitors to the UK. [113939]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 145W.

  Police Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many early leavers there were from the police pension scheme in each police authority area in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999; [114456]

  (2) how many early leavers there were from the Police Pension Scheme in each police authority area between 30 September 1998 and 30 September 1999. [114455]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Police Pension Scheme is administered locally by individual police authorities. Information about those who opt out of the Police Pension Scheme is not held centrally.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the number of police pensions in payment in each police authority area in(a) 1989, (b) 1997 and (c) 1999; [114459]

  (2) what was the number of deferred members of the police pension fund in each police authority area in (a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [114460]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Police Pension Scheme is administered locally by individual police authorities. The information requested is not held centrally.
  158W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in each police authority area were eligible to be members of the police pension fund in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [114462]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  All regular police officers in the United Kingdom are eligible to be members of the Police Pension Scheme. Membership is automatic unless officers exercise their right to opt out of the Scheme. There are, however, some restrictions on eligibility to rejoin the Scheme after a decision to opt out.

  Information on the total number of police officers in each force in 1997, 1998 and 1999 is set out in the table, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Total police officer strength including secondments within the police service in England and Wales

  Police force

  March 1997

  March 1998

  March 1999

  Avon and Somerset

  3,045

  3,033

  3,010

  Bedfordshire

  1,113

  1,098

  1,050

  Cambridgeshire

  1,322

  1,309

  1,282

  Cheshire

  2,087

  2,083

  2,084

  Cleveland

  1,480

  1,510

  1,450

  Cumbria

  1,164

  1,186

  1,132

  Derbyshire

  1,824

  1,802

  1,768

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,908

  3,006

  2,904

  Dorset

  1,306

  1,331

  1,287

  Durham

  1,489

  1,543

  1,577

  Essex

  2,996

  2,962

  2,898

  Gloucestershire

  1,153

  1,124

  1,106

  Greater Manchester

  7,031

  7,070

  6,836

  Hampshire

  3,504

  3,535

  3,514

  Hertfordshire

  1,793

  1,740

  1,732

  Humberside

  2,071

  2,045

  1,980

  Kent

  3,310

  3,294

  3,246

  Lancashire

  3,309

  3,328

  3,257

  Leicestershire

  1,991

  2,025

  2,006

  Lincolnshire

  1,218

  1,211

  1,146

  London, City of (2)

  883

  846

  787

  Merseyside

  4,332

  4,311

  4,229

  Metropolitan police (1,2)

  27,123

  26,561

  26,133

  Norfolk

  1,455

  1,446

  1,384

  Northamptonshire

  1,199

  1,191

  1,146

  Northumbria

  3,732

  3,821

  3,853

  North Yorkshire

  1,367

  1,396

  1,345

  Nottinghamshire

  2,358

  2,355

  2,234

  South Yorkshire

  3,202

  3,231

  3,215

  Staffordshire

  2,249

  2,326

  2,272

  Suffolk

  1,199

  1,206

  1,192

  Surrey

  1,643

  1,626

  1,667

  Sussex

  3,140

  3,046

  2,867

  Thames Valley

  3,762

  3,838

  3,768

  Warwickshire

  951

  947

  921

  West Mercia

  2,073

  2,046

  2,036

  West Midlands

  7,217

  7,245

  7,352

  West Yorkshire

  5,283

  5,226

  4,996

  Wiltshire

  1,178

  1,184

  1,156

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,016

  1,012

  1,034

  Gwent

  1,261

  1,249

  1,259

  North Wales

  1,397

  1,420

  1,416

  South Wales

  3,030

  3.053

  2,994

  Total of all 43 forces

  127,158

  126,814

  124,520

  NCS

  —

  —

  1,333

  NCIS

  —

  —

  243

  Total

  127,158

  126,814

  126,096

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of active members of the police pension fund in each police authority area in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [114461]
  159W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Police Pension Scheme is administered locally by individual police authorities and the information requested is not held centrally. However, as the vast majority of regular police officers choose to be members of the Police Pension Scheme the number of active members of the Scheme in each force will be slightly less than its total number of officers.

  Police (Best Value)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the national application of the Association of Chief Police Officers' document, "Harmonisation of Business Processes", and its role in delivering best value by comparison of police forces' performance. [114464]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Association of Chief Police Officers' "Harmonisation of Business Processes" document has been one of a number of emerging influences which have been taken account of, and incorporated into, the new inspection model developed by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. The new inspection model will assist us in our efforts to compare performance across police authorities and Basic Command Units.

  Police (Inspections)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to use the business excellence model as the framework for future inspections of police forces by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. [114463]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has developed a new inspection model which will come into effect on 1 April 2000. This coincides with the introduction of best value into the police service.

  The principles of the Business Excellence Model have been closely followed during the development of this new inspection model. However, the model has been tailored to meet the particular needs of policing.

  A manual explaining the new inspection model is due to be published in April.

  City Status
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the towns which have applied for city status for the third millennium. [114587]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The following towns have submitted bids for the grant of city status for the millennium:

  England

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackpool Bolton

  Brighton and Hove

  Chelmsford

  Colchester

  Croydon

  Doncaster

  Dover

  Guildford

  160W

  Ipswich

  Luton

  Maidstone

  Medway

  Middlesbrough

  Milton Keynes

  Northampton

  Preston

  Reading

  Shrewsbury

  Southend

  Southwark

  Stockport

  Swindon

  Telford

  Warrington

  Wolverhampton

  Northern Ireland

  Ballymena

  Lisburn

  Scotland

  Ayr

  Inverness

  Paisley

  Stirling

  Wales

  Aberystwyth

  Machynlleth

  Newport

  Newtown

  St. Asaph

  Wrexham.

  British Nationality Applications
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British nationality are awaiting approval; and if he will make a statement. [114252]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at 31 January, the current estimated number of British nationality applications awaiting approval was 94,000.

  Stop and Search Operations
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were stopped and searched in 1998 and in 1989; how many people were arrested following stop and search in 1998 and 1999; how many white people per 1,000 population were stopped and searched in 1998 and 1999; how many black and ethnic minority people per 1,000 population were stopped and searched in 1998 and 1999; how many white people per 1,000 population were arrested following stop and search in 1998 and 1999; how many black and ethnic minority people were arrested following stop and search in 1998 and 1999; what was the ratio of stop and searches for black and ethnic minority people for each white person stopped and searched in 1998 and 1999; what was the ratio of arrest following stop and search for black and ethnic minority people for each white person arrested following stop and search in 1998 and 1999; and what
  161W
  was the ratio for conviction following stop and search for black and ethnic minority people for each white person convicted following stop and search in 1998 and 1999 for each police authority in England, and for each borough in the Metropolitan Police area. [114431]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information by police force area and ethnic appearance of suspect for persons stopped and searched by the police and those subsequently arrested, is published annually by the Home Office in 'Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System', a copy of which is in the Library. This information is also available through the Home Office web site www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/publf.htm. The latest information published in December 1999, covers information for the financial year 1998–99. No information is available centrally for each borough in the Metropolitan Police area or for the number of convictions following a stop and search.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 15 November and 16 December 1999 and 20 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. A. H. Sameh. [114582]

  Mrs. Roche
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton on 9 March.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 16 November and 15 December 1999 and 20 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. K. Mandelsi Ibrahim. [114581]

  Mrs. Roche
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton on 14 March. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost to date of the investigation by Wiltshire Constabulary into the Chemical and Biological Defence establishment at Porton Down; and how many(a) police officers and (b) civilians are employed on it. [114224]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The total costs, as of 29 February 2000, are estimated at approximately £203,000. This figure includes all salaries, overtime, subsistence, travel, accommodation and purchase of additional computer and other equipment.

  Fourteen police officers (one on a part-time basis) and two civilian support staff are employed on the investigation.

  Asylum Seekers Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the testing of asylum seeker support vouchers began; and what progress has been made with those tests. [114541]

  Mrs. Roche
  Sodexho Pass began testing the voucher scheme in early March. This is an ongoing process that will continue until the scheme goes live on 3 April.
  162W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which local authorities have been consulted by Sodexho about the implementation of the new asylum seeker voucher scheme. [114584]

  Mrs. Roche
  Sodexho Pass is not contractually bound to consult local authorities in regard to the voucher scheme. However, the National Asylum Support Service continues to liaise and work with local authorities, through the regional consortia and the Local Government Association, on all aspects of the new support arrangements.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he expects Sodexho to have an asylum seeker voucher scheme ready to implement on 1 April; and if he will make a statement. [114583]

  Mrs. Roche
  Yes. Sodexho Pass, the contractor for the asylum support voucher scheme, will be ready to implement the voucher scheme from 3 April when the new national asylum support scheme begins to be phased in.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each local authority, the number of anti-social behaviour orders(a) in total and (b) per head of population; and if he will make a statement. [114588]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 21 February 2000,Official Report, column 824W, records of numbers of anti-social behaviour orders applied for are not currently held centrally. We understand that about 25–30 orders have been made in England and Wales since the order came into force in April last year.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the(a) number of incidents of concerted indiscipline at each young offender institution and (b) average daily population at each young offender institution in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [114638]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Number of incidents of concerted indiscipline at young offender institutions between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 1999

  Prison Service establishment

  Number of incidents1

  Altcourse

  1

  Aylesbury

  2

  Brinsford

  2

  Brockhill

  1

  Castington

  10

  Deerbolt

  1

  Doncaster

  2

  Dover

  1

  Exeter

  3

  Feltham

  3

  Gloucester

  6

  Hollesley Bay

  2

  Lancaster Farms

  1

  Moorland

  2

  New Hall

  1

  Northallerton

  1

  163W

  Number of incidents of concerted indiscipline at young offender institutions between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 1999

  Prison Service establishment

  Number of incidents1

  Parc

  3

  Rochester

  5

  Stoke Heath

  4

  Wetherby

  2

  Total

  53

  1 Provisional figures

  Average population in young offender institutions in England and Wales in 1999

  Prison Service establishment

  Average population

  Male

  Altcourse

  105

  Ashfield

  32

  Aylesbury

  357

  Brinsford

  500

  Cardiff

  88

  Castington

  350

  Deerbolt

  421

  Doncaster

  515

  Dorchester

  24

  Dover

  265

  Exeter

  63

  Feltham

  822

  Glen Parva

  827

  Gloucester

  119

  Guys Marsh

  134

  Haslar

  150

  Hatfield

  119

  Hindley

  462

  Hollesley Bay

  204

  Hull

  134

  Huntercombe

  305

  Lancaster Farms

  482

  Lewes

  82

  Moorland

  386

  Northallerton

  268

  Norwich

  149

  Onley

  590

  Parc

  253

  Portland

  545

  Reading

  220

  Rochester

  272

  Stoke Heath

  611

  Swansea

  71

  Swinfen Hall

  283

  Thorn Cross

  231

  Usk

  15

  Werrington

  100

  Wetherby

  332

  Woodhill

  78

  Female

  Brockhill

  10

  Bullwood Hall

  65

  Drake Hall

  18

  East Sutton Park

  3

  Holloway

  38

  New Hall

  105

  Styal

  58

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average time between arrest and sentencing for persistent young offenders(a) in 1999 and (b) from July to December 1999; and if he will make a statement. [114639]
  164W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The average time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders in the first half of 1999 was 110 days. Figures for the whole of 1999 are expected to be available within the next two months.

  Millennium Celebrations (Policing)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to police forces of additional commitments for policing for the Millennium celebrations; and if he will make a statement. [114649]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The detailed information is not collected centrally, but estimates were provided in the reply that I gave the hon. Member on 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 485W.

  Secure Training Centres
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of concerted indiscipline have been recorded at each secure training centre in each quarterly period since they have been open and in total to date; and if he will make a statement. [114640]

  Mr. Boateng
  There have been a total of 45 recorded incidents of concerted indiscipline at the three secure training centres (STC) since the first centre opened. Medway opened on 17 April 1998, Rainsbrook opened on 1 July 1999 and Hassockfield opened on 17 September 1999.

  The definition of concerted indiscipline is not uniform across the three contracts. In the Medway and Rainsbrook contracts, "concerted indiscipline" is defined as
  Any single act committed by a group of more than two Trainees, which is in breach of the STC Rules.

  In the Hassockfield contract, "concerted indiscipline" is defined as
  Any single incident when two or more Trainees act together with the intention of disrupting the order and discipline of the Secure Training Centre and/or refusing to desist any action or to comply with any lawful order.

  A quarterly breakdown of the total of recorded incidents of concerted indiscipline, by individual centre, is as follows:

  Medway

  Rainsbrook

  Hassockfield

  April-June 1998

  2

  1—

  1—

  July-September 1998

  10

  1—

  1—

  October-December 1998

  5

  1—

  1—

  January-March 1999

  1

  1—

  1—

  April-June 1999

  5

  1—

  1—

  July-September 1999

  3

  1

  1

  October-December 1999

  5

  2

  4

  January-10 March 2000

  2

  0

  4

  1 Not open

  Persistent young offenders often exhibit challenging behaviour. Preliminary analysis shows that half of the early recipients of the Secure Training Order had been excluded from school and at least 75 per cent. had been in local authority homes care. Many trainees have a history of disruptive behaviour in local authority homes. Previous community-based attempts to tackle their offending have proven to be unsuccessful.
  165W
  Dealing with large groups of volatile young offenders has been problematical. The centres have experienced early operating difficulties, each to varying degrees. The contractors continue to learn from their experience and my officials, with the assistance of inspectors from Social Services Inspectorate and Ofsted, continue to monitor the management of each of the centres.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the(a) capital cost of establishing each secure training centre and (b) average cost per place per year; how many places are there in total at secure training centres; what plans he has to open further secure training centres; and if he will make a statement. [114643]

  Mr. Boateng
  The capital costs of secure training centres are met by the contractors, with part of the contract payment (the fixed element) covering the cost of financing the capital expenditure. We estimate that the capital costs are in the order of £10 million per centre. The average cost per place per year, including the fixed element and based on full occupancy, is: Medway £149,445; Rainsbrook £118,161 and; Hassockfield £131,827 (all at January 2000 prices). There are 120 places in total at the three centres. There are currently plans to provide two further secure training centres. From 1 April, the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales will take on the function of commissioning and purchasing secure accommodation for remanded and sentenced children and young people.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employees involved in education have resigned at each secure training centre since they opened; and if he will make a statement. [114642]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are three secure training centres, each contracted to hold up to 40 trainees. Medway opened on 17 April 1998, Rainsbrook opened on 1 July 1999 and Hassockfield opened on 17 September 1999.

  As at 10 March 2000, the number of teaching staff who have resigned at each of these centres since they opened is six at Medway; one at Rainsbrook; and five at Hassockfield. A further two teachers at Hassockfield are working their period of notice.

  The contracts require each centre to provide each trainee with 25 hours per week of education and/or vocational training, and for nine full time equivalent teachers to be employed at each centre. Occasional shortfalls in the number of full time teachers have been remedied by the use of sessional teachers and all three centres have continued to deliver the requirement for twenty five hours of education per week per trainee throughout the period of contract.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to date of damage caused by those held at each secure training centre; and if he will make a statement. [114641]

  Mr. Boateng
  The cost of damage caused by those held at secure training centres is met in full by the contractor and not passed on to the Home Office. Contractors are not required to provide details of such costs to the Home Office and the information requested is not, therefore, available.

  Vivisection Investigation
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 2000,Official Report, columns 661–62W, (1) how many hours work his officials put into investigating the allegations made by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection against Harlan UK; what was the total cost of the investigation, including the cost of the time spent on it by his officials; and what plans he has to recoup that cost from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection; [114200]

  (2) how many allegations of breaches of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, its codes of practices and licence conditions were made by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection in their report about Harlan UK; and how many of these were substantiated by the results of the investigation made by his officials; [114201]

  (3) how many lines of text of his officials' report into the allegations made by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection against Harlan UK were blanked out or removed at the request of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection before a copy was placed in the Library; what subjects these sections refer to; what reasons were given by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection for requesting that these sections of the report be blanked out or removed; if these sections include suggestions by his officers that the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection investigator was herself responsible for the breaches that formed the basis of the allegations made against Harlan UK; and if he will publish the full, unedited version of his official's report of their investigation. [114202]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As originally summarised by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), there were 22 clusters of allegations which were investigated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. A further set of eight allegations was submitted in July 1999. One breach of a condition of certification, mentioned separately in two allegations, was confirmed. No action has been judged necessary in relation to the remaining allegations.

  Blanked out areas of the text in the report placed in the Library on 8 March reflect confidentiality agreements entered into by the Home Office and points of commercial sensitivity and personal safety. About 90 lines of text were blanked out because of a confidentiality agreement with the BUAV, accepted in July 1999 in order to obtain information to enable a full Home Office investigation. This agreement covered incidental material from videotapes, an audio-tape and diaries kept by the undercover investigator. An interview conducted with her in the course of the Inspectorate's investigation was also subject to the same reservations. Discussions are continuing with the BUAV about the release of confidentiality of these sections of the report, so that a fuller version can be published.

  In excess of 1,000 hours were expended on the investigation into the allegations and the preparation of the report at a cost of more than £36,000. Inspectors were also diverted from other work protecting animals to

  167W
  investigate these allegations. There is no mechanism by which I can recoup the costs from the BUAV: they will form a minor part of the expenditure in operating the 1986 Act which must be recouped each year through levying fees on designated establishments and personal licence holders.

  Automatic Release
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the impact on the average daily prison population of ending automatic release on licence of offenders; and if he will make a statement. [114644]

  Mr. Boateng
  Prisoners sentenced to less than 12 months are released automatically half way through their sentence unless additional days have been imposed for breaches of discipline. These prisoners will be "at risk" until the end of their sentence; that is, if they commit a further imprisonable offence before the end of their original sentence, the court dealing with the new offence may add all or part of the outstanding sentence to any new sentence it imposes. The effect of stopping automatic unconditional release would be approximately to double the number of prisoners currently serving sentences of up to 12 months, which at the end of January 2000 was 7,200.

  Prisoners sentenced to 12 months or more but less than four years are released automatically half way through their sentence (subject to additional days). They are released on licence and subject to supervision up to the three-quarter point of their sentence (or to the end in the case of some sex offenders) and are "at risk" until the end of their original sentence. The effect of stopping automatic conditional release would be to double the number of prisoners currently serving sentences of 12 months and up to four years, which at the end of January 2000 was 19,400.

  Those sentenced to four years or more are eligible for parole half way through their sentence. If parole is not granted then or at a subsequent parole review, release occurs at the two-thirds point of the sentence. Release is on licence and subject to supervision up to the three-quarters point of the sentence (or to the end in the case of some sex offenders). All are "at risk" until the end of their original sentence. The effect of stopping discretionary release could be to increase the number of prisoners serving determinate sentences of four years or more by up to 20,000.

  These estimates assume no change in sentencing practice by the courts.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the number of special constables recruited to the Metropolitan Police Service between 30 September 1998 and 30 September 1999 is available; and if he will make a statement. [114454]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that 84 special constables were recruited to the Metropolitan Police Service between 30 September 1998 and 30 September 1999.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the external consultants used by his Department since 1997, excluding public relations and marketing consultants, and their cost. [114453]

  Mr. Straw
  Information listing the name and cost of all external consultants used by the Department since 1997, excluding public relations and marketing consultants can be obtained only at short notice at disproportionate cost. The individual values of consultancy contracts are commercial in confidence. The available information is as follows:

  Consultant

  Helix Consulting Group

  Janet Maitland

  Debenham Consulting

  Kinsley Lord

  Ioanann Management Consultants

  Kermon

  KPMG

  Smythe Dorward Lambert

  Clear Communication

  BDO Stay Hayward

  Admiral

  Manpower IT Services

  Institute for Employment Studies

  Ernst & Young/Qi/Bull

  EcSoft

  Equilibra

  Angela Harris

  Mary Manolias

  Tom Debenham Consultant

  Capitas Ras

  PA Consultancy

  Gensys Editoral

  Priority Training Ltd. (Bull)

  Hendra

  PA Consulting Group

  Price Waterhouse Coopers

  Sir William Stubbs

  Summerfield Wilmot Keene

  Mark Carroll

  Mike Briggs

  Brian Farrington Ltd.

  Mott McDonald

  Mr. Ron Harrington

  Winfield Consulting

  AWA Associates

  South Bank University Enterprises

  Derek Sullivan

  Guy Sears

  Munro Sutherland

  West Midlands Fire Service

  J. Carven

  David Hayton

  C. Herbert

  J. Greenwell

  W. Mumford

  J. Mulley

  R. Hastie Smith

  169W

  Cashton

  W. Kirkham

  B. Venner

  Holmes Ellis Consultants

  Central Communications Telecommunications Agency

  Beamount Colson Ltd.

  Dr. Saroj Patel

  Total Value: £6,208,025.

  Best Value
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in delivering best value, it is his policy that comparisons should be made between the performance of basic command units within police forces; and if he will make a statement on the criteria to be used. [114457]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In January this year, for the first time, the recorded crime statistics were published at Basic Command Unit (BCU) level. This allows local people to judge and compare the performance of their local police. From July 2000, this will be augmented with recorded crime statistics being published at crime and disorder reduction partnership level.

  Both the BCU and the partnerships' data will be published in a form which will assist comparison on a like with like basis. We are working, in conjunction with Leeds University, to draw up families of BCUs and partnerships, so that they can be compared with one another within these families. We expect the existence of these families to be a significant help to police forces and authorities who, under Best Value, wish to benchmark performance at local level.

  Minister

  Location

  Date of travel

  Date of return

  Purpose

  Kate Hoey

  The Hague

  7 February 1999

  8 February 1999

  Ministerial visit to Europol

  Kate Hoey

  Berlin

  10 February 1999

  12 February 1999

  Informal meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA)

  Home Secretary

  Berlin

  11 February 1999

  11 February 1999

  Informal meeting of JHA Council

  Kate Hoey

  Bonn

  23 February 1999

  23 February 1999

  Restricted meeting of the JHA

  Home Secretary

  Brussels

  11 March 1999

  12 March 1999

  JHA Council Meeting

  Kate Hoey

  Brussels

  11 March 1999

  12 March 1999

  JHA Council Meeting

  Paul Boateng

  Brussels

  13 March 1999

  14 March 1999

  Meeting with EU Commissioner for Social Affairs

  Lord Williams

  Thailand and Cambodia

  13 March 1999

  19 March 1999

  Meetings regarding child sex exploitation matters

  George Howarth

  Brussels

  16 March 1999

  16 March 1999

  Meetings regarding drugs and European elections

  Kate Hoey

  Cologne

  24 March 1999

  28 March 1999

  Attending conference on domestic violence/violence against women.

  Kate Hoey

  Luxembourg

  7 April 1999

  7 April 1999

  Special JHA council on Kosovo

  Home Secretary

  Luxembourg

  7 April 1999

  7 April 1999

  Special JHA council on Kosovo

  Kate Hoey

  Brussels and Turin

  20 April 1999

  22 April 1999

  Appearance at Civil Liberties Committee and football intelligence officers

  Lord Williams

  Germany

  10 May 1999

  12 May 1999

  Meetings with German Minister responsible for prisons

  Home Secretary

  Bonn

  10 May 1999

  10 May 1999

  Meeting with Interior Minister

  Home Secretary

  Brussels

  26 May 1999

  27 May 1999

  JHA Council Meeting

  Kate Hoey

  Brussels

  26 May 1999

  28 May 1999

  JHA Council Meeting

  Paul Boateng

  Chicago

  26 May 1999

  28 May 1999

  Meetings regarding policing, drugs and social exclusion

  Paul Boateng

  Washington

  28 May 1999

  7 June 1999

  Severe personality disorder. Meetings and visits

  Kate Hoey

  Vilnius

  30 June 1999

  1 July 1999

  Meetings regarding immigration and organized crime

  Kate Hoey

  Helsinki

  17 July 1999

  18 July 1999

  Pre-Presidency ministerial visit

  170W
  From April 2001, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary hope to undertake more comprehensive inspections at BCU level. This will also allow comparisons to be made. These inspections will be based upon the same principles as the new Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary inspection model for police authorities. A BCU inspection protocol is currently being developed.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that police forces should use(a) external consultants or (b) internal assessment for the purposes of assessing Best Value performance. [114465]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the Local Government Act 1999, individual police authorities are responsible for delivering best value. This includes the extent to which they use external consultants or undertake internal assessments.

  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
  [pursuant to her reply, 6 March 2000, c. 545]: The number of staff employed in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on 1 February was 5,806.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions on which he and Ministers in his Department have undertaken overseas visits in the cause of their ministerial duties since 28 January 1999, indicating the purpose and duration of each visit. [114458]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested is given in the table.
  171W

  Minister

  Location

  Date of travel

  Date of return

  Purpose

  Lord Bassam

  Lille

  19 August 1999

  19 August 1999

  Attending French launch of 'Show Racism the Red Card' campaign

  Home Secretary

  Turku, Finland

  15 September 1999

  17 September 1999

  JHA Council (informal meeting)

  Barbara Roche

  Turku, Finland

  15 September 1999

  17 September 1999

  JHA Council (informal meeting)

  Barbara Roche

  Warsaw, Poland

  23 September 1999

  23 September 1999

  Meeting with Polish Minister of Interior

  Home Secretary

  Tampere, Finland

  14 October 1999

  16 October 1999

  Special JHA Council meeting

  Paul Boateng

  Madrid

  14 October 1999

  15 October 1999

  Meetings regarding volunteering and prison matters

  Barbara Roche

  Luxembourg

  29 October 1999

  29 October 1999

  JHA Council Meeting

  Paul Boateng

  Paris

  16 November 1999

  17 November 1999

  Attending Community Service Volunteering Conference

  Paul Boateng

  Utrecht, Holland

  18 November 1999

  19 November 1999

  Visit to Centre for treating severely personality disorder individuals

  Home Secretary

  Brussels

  2 December 1999

  3 December 1999

  JHA Council Meeting

  Home Secretary

  Brussels

  2 December 1999

  3 December 1999

  JHA Council Meeting

  Barbara Roche

  Brussels

  2 December 1999

  3 December 1999

  JHA Council Meeting

  Barbara Roche

  The Hague

  20 January 2000

  21 January 2000

  Visit to The Netherlands. Minister Job Cohen—to see Dutch asylam

  Paul Boateng

  Stockholm

  26 January 2000

  26 January 2000

  Stockholm International Conference on the Holocaust (accompanying Foreign Secretary)

  Home Secretary

  Lisbon

  3 March 2000

  4 March 2000

  JHA Meeting

  172W

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Millennium Dome Experience: Ticket Sales
Lord Luke Lord Luke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the advance sales of tickets for the Millennium Dome are still adequate to ensure that the whole project will have been run at a profit by the end of the year.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is extremely encouraged by the continuing upward trend in visitor numbers: 10 million paying visitors over the year will enable the company to deliver a break-even operating budget. The company's target remains higher than that, but its focus at this stage is on achieving that figure of 10 million. Over 1 million people have visited the Dome so far, which is remarkable in itself given the fact that January, February and March are traditionally low season periods for visitor attractions.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. However, in view of the Question that I asked on the subject of the chairman and board of the NMEC on 10th February in this House and the fact that the chairman of the company no longer has his day-time job at British Airways after a £60 million loss in the first quarter of the year, do the Government still think that he is the right person to be chairman?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, he has delivered great service to the Dome. The Government do think that he is definitely the right person to remain chairman.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that everyone will hope that M. Gerbeau, who seemed somewhat surprised to get the job, is successful at the Dome? However, has the noble and learned Lord read reports in the press that there were several M. Gerbeaux at Euro Disney—one very highly paid, one very senior and one junior and not so well paid? Will the Minister categorically and unequivocally deny the rather alarming suggestion that the wrong M. Gerbeau was chosen?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I categorically and unequivocally deny that the wrong M. Gerbeau was chosen. Our M. Gerbeau is delivering a great service to the Dome, as can be seen from the huge visitor numbers that we are now seeing.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what is the effect of the combined tickets that we see being advertised now for the Dome and the London Eye, which, of course, has been very successful? Can the noble and learned Lord also tell us how the money will be allocated between the two; in other words, will they be run independently or jointly? What will happen in that respect?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, visitors to the Eye can buy a ticket there which will take them down to the Dome by river. That is a marvellous journey and one that I would recommend to everyone in the House. The money for the boat trip will be allocated to the boat operators and the money for entrance to the Dome will go to the NMEC.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I trust that my noble and learned friend will forgive my voice. Will he accept the plaudits of Back-Benchers for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, was not chosen for the post?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, applied for the position.

Waterhouse Report: Government Response
2.39 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take in the light of the Waterhouse report on the abuse of children in care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government are determined to learn the lessons emerging from this tragic inquiry. We are already making good progress on many of the recommendations contained in the Lost in Care report. The Government's response to the Waterhouse inquiry is being co-ordinated by the Ministerial Task Force on Children's Safeguards.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the Government deserve congratulations on their speedy and constructive response to the Waterhouse report on child abuse in residential homes? Is he also aware that in a lecture after the report was published Sir Ronald Waterhouse said that the abusers could by now have infiltrated the foster care system where they could prove more difficult to detect?
As far as concerns monitoring, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it would prove exceptionally difficult to monitor foster parents? Although the Government have said that they will monitor foster agencies, monitoring foster parents will be remarkably tough. Can my noble friend tell the House whether the Government have any plans to deal with that situation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The Care Standards Bill, which is currently proceeding rather slowly through your Lordships' House, will give power to the appropriate commission to inspect fostering agencies. I take note of my noble friend's point as regards the general issue of how to ensure that foster care is effective and that there are safeguards of high standard. We need better safeguards and support for children placed with foster carers, but I believe that the best approach is the one that the Government have adopted in establishing UK national foster care standards. These aim to raise standards and to improve practice on recruitment, assessment and training. In the 1998–99 financial year, the Government began funding a training programme for foster carers. I am sure that that is the appropriate way forward.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the proposal that there should he a children's commissioner for Wales? Is he also aware there is some talk that this proposal may be incorporated in the Care Standards Bill which is currently before this House? If that is so, can the Minister say whether noble Lords will have an opportunity to discuss the proposals, possibly on Report or at the Third Reading stage of the Bill?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that the Report stage of the Bill will take place on 28th March. That will provide the House with an opportunity to discuss matters such as the children's rights director. I cannot inform the House of the outcome of the discussions which have taken place in the Welsh Assembly on the proposed children's commissioner for Wales. However, I understand that an amendment could be made to the Bill in another place if the discussions are successfully concluded. As regards the national care standards commission for England, we regard the children's rights director as having an important role in ensuring that an overview of children's rights is maintained.
Baroness Young: My Lords, is the Minister aware of two of the conclusions of the Waterhouse report; namely, that many boys aged between 16 and 18 were corrupted, damaged and sexually confused by the sexual abuse that they experienced, and that many teenage boys were abused by men who were not in a position of trust and would therefore not have been caught by the new abuse of trust provisions in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill which is now before your Lordships' House? Will the noble Lord consider dropping the Bill in the light of those conclusions?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think that is a little outside my area of responsibility. However, in considering what action needs to be taken as regards those people who have a relationship of trust with young people, we need to ensure that the proper safeguards are in place. The Protection of Children Act, which has passed through both Houses and will,
1436
I hope, be implemented in the autumn, will provide children with much greater protection because of the responsibility it places on employers to report to the Department of Health instances where employees have shown themselves to be at risk of harming, or have harmed, children in their care. That will be an important protection in the future.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that important though standards are, public confidence and public expectations of the care system are equally significant? Does he further agree that when the new standards are in place and are monitored and regulated, as the Care Standards Bill will undoubtedly ensure, it will be important to make a great point of publicising them as widely as possible so that the general public know what standards we ought to provide?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I very much agree with those comments. We shall expect the commission to ensure that its work is brought to the public's attention and that the public can gain access both to its work and to the guidelines which will inform the inspection process. I believe that the new commission's work, which will undoubtedly lead to a much higher and more consistent standard of regulation, in conjunction with the provisions of the Protection of Children Act and the implementation of the measures in the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, which is before your Lordships' House at the moment, will offer a much greater degree of protection to young people than has been the case in former generations. At the same time, we need to undertake many other measures to ensure that staff who work in residential care settings are given the training, support and leadership that is undoubtedly required.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Government examine the workings of the care system much more widely than merely the matter of abuse? I ask that because of the exceptionally high proportion of children who were formerly in care who come before the courts and who eventually receive custodial sentences.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right; the statistics for children who have left care are striking in terms of their low educational achievement and their records of homelessness and of crime. As I say, the Children (Leaving Care) Bill is before your Lordships' House at the moment. That Bill will enable much stronger support to be given to young people, particularly through the appointment of young persons' advisers who will advise each young person leaving care. A package of measures, including financial support, will be available and will give these young people a much better start in life than they have hitherto received.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Sir William Utting's conclusion to the previous report on child abuse is that the best

1437
safeguard is an environment of overall excellence? Therefore, does the Minister recommend the extremely high quality residential care staff training offered by Philip Stokoe at the Tavistock Clinic? Is the Minister aware of the evidence that such training reduces staff sickness and is therefore more than cost effective?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not aware of the work of Philip Stokoe, although officials in my department are. I understand that he takes a psychodynamic approach to analysing people's behaviour while in residential care. We would, of course, want to take advantage of all support, training and counselling systems that are available. We should recognise that although the Waterhouse report revealed tremendous failings in the care system for young people, many of the people employed in residential care homes do a great deal of work and provide a good standard of care. However, we must ensure that all people working in residential care provide that standard of care. We must recognise that if they are to provide that standard of care, often in pressurised situations, they will require much more training, support and leadership than they have received in the past. The Government are determined to achieve that.

Dairy Industry
2.49 p.m.
Lord Geraint Lord Geraint asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the present state of the dairy industry in Britain is satisfactory.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government recognise the considerable problems currently facing the dairy industry, where a combination of factors has reduced milk prices and had a consequential effect on incomes in the sector over the past two years.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is well aware that dairy farmers in this country receive less for their milk than any other producer within the EU. She will be further aware that milk prices in this country will go down as low as 7p per pint to the producer and we, the consumers, will pay anything up to 40p for that same pint of milk. Will the noble Baroness admit that that is either the Government's fault, the supermarkets' fault or both? Will she give an assurance to the dairy farmers of this country that she will do everything in her power to ensure that they get the agrimonetary compensation and will lift the ban on the calf export scheme?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a number of points. We have taken action already that will help the dairy sector in terms of the moratorium
1438
on cattle passport charges. We are looking at supporting initiatives to find new markets for surplus calves, either for sale as veal or in the processing sector.
In the debate on agriculture last week, we had a long discussion about agrimonetary compensation, which is under consideration at the moment. As I said then, agrimonetary compensation for the dairy sector is not free, nor is it European money per se; 85p in every pound is paid for by the British taxpayer.
The noble Lord is right: the price of milk has fallen. There are variations in prices within this country and there are also variations within Europe, and we are at the bottom of the league. I am not sure that that is the fault of either the Government or of the supermarkets. It is the fault of the market in milk and, in particular, of the effect that the strong pound has had in determining price. A variety of issues have dramatically affected the market in milk and caused the restructuring in the dairy industry that has been going on for a long time. I do not underestimate the problems that dairy farmers have at the moment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I agree that there are an awful lot of problems in the dairy sector. Could not the Minister use whatever charm and influence she has on the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Unless we find a way of paying these agricultural compensatory amounts to the dairy farmers, we shall have an even more serious problem than we have at the moment. We are told constantly how brilliantly the economy is doing and that the Chancellor has a war chest. As we are not talking about an enormous amount of money, such help—I put it in the simplest terms—could be the difference between life and death for dairy farmers.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand the passion with which the noble Baroness speaks. But I am not sure whether my passion would be put to best account in the way she suggests. Of course agrimonetary compensation is one possible use of public funds if they can be found within the agriculture industry. Today we are talking about dairy farmers. However, we have to look across the board. If the money went into agrimonetary compensation, there are other sectors—I am thinking in particular of the pig sector—which would not benefit. We cannot spend money twice. There are issues of priorities and, unfortunately, not only the dairy sector but a large number of other sectors in agriculture are having problems at the moment.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a fundamental injustice in the fact that each company owned by United Kingdom dairy farmers is restricted to no more than 25 per cent of the wholesale market—which, of course, relates to the break up of Milk Marque under the previous government—whereas continental farmers are allowed a much greater degree of freedom and a much greater market share? I believe that in the case of the Danish firm MD, it is up to 95 per cent of its own market. Does she further agree that this commercial distortion, this prevention of our own dairy farmers

1439
from helping themselves in the ways and on the scale that they would like, added to the other disadvantages they are under because of high welfare standards, traceability and so on—which are welcome in themselves but are not being followed by farmers in some of our competitor countries—place the UK dairy industry in a very unfavourable position? Are the Government prepared to see the recreation of something like Milk Marque in order that value can be added by dairy farmers, who are anxious to market their produce in the most efficient way and to add value? Does the noble Baroness agree that we need something on that scale in order to make that possible?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, given the recent report on Milk Marque and the MMC finding that prices were higher than they should have been as a result of its selling system, it would be wrong of me to suggest to the right reverend Prelate that it would be easy to recreate either a Milk Marque or a Milk Marketing Board in the form that they were before. As he will be aware, there will be three successor bodies to Milk Marque. We hope that they will be innovative and will be able to help in terms of marketing. Specific issues regarding processing are being investigated at the moment, and I understand that the competition authorities will be reporting to the Secretary of State for Industry by Easter.
The right reverend Prelate is right; there are large, vertically integrated co-operatives on the Continent. However, it is not only a matter of the scope of the organisations but the way in which they operate, and making sure that that does not go against—
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister accept—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, my noble friend is aware of the concern of dairy farmers about the incidence of TB. Can she advise the House of the progress that is being made to reduce and it is to be hoped eventually eradicate this problem?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the problem of TB in cattle affects dairy farmers considerably. We hope to announce two extra triplets in the culling trial on TB later this week. We are looking specifically at the issue of going over quota, which occurs when cattle movements on dairy farms are restricted.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister accept—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I find it very difficult to fulfil this role. I think it is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Front Bench to ask the next supplementary question.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Minister said that the processing sector is a crucial part of the industry. Does she accept that if farmers received more help from the Government they would be able to turn milk into other finished products and we would then see a greater variety of yoghurt, cream and cheese on supermarket shelves? Can she assure the House that farmers will receive the training and help that they have been denied in the past?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the training element in the rural development regulation will help. Equally, there have been four specific initiatives funded under the £1 million aid for marketing innovative dairy projects which it is to be hoped will help dairy farmers and farmers generally to add value to their produce.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the noble Baroness attempt to drum in to her not always sensitive department the fact that the present plight of the dairy industry is likely to leave havoc in its train in the countryside? Is she aware that a typical, efficient dairy farmer with a modest-sized herd in Somerset today receives a milk cheque for the same number of cows as he received six years ago—which represents half the amount of income? That means a cut in living standards and makes it impossible for him to remain in operation. After several generations he is being forced to sell out.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord says. I appreciate the effects on individuals and families. It is no comfort to the noble Lord, know, for me to say that dairy farming is not the only sector that is affected in this way. We know from the data on farm incomes that although incomes doubled between 1990 and 1995, they have been reduced by about 60 per cent since then. That is why the Government have taken a range of measures to help the various sectors in agriculture.
Noble Lords: Next Question!

Magistrates' Appointments: Duchy of Lancaster
3 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What stage they have reached in the consultation procedure regarding the proposal for centralising the appointments of magistrates and the administration of justice for Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, my right honourable friend in another place, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, wrote recently to a range of relevant people in the Duchy, including the noble Lord, to invite their views on the proposed transfer of responsibility for

1441
magisterial appointments in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the Lord Chancellor. My right honourable friend in another place is also seeking views from a number of national organisations, or their local representatives, and has arranged a press release to newspapers in the Duchy area, inviting local people to express their views.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Is he aware that the Duchy of Lancaster has been responsible for the appointment of magistrates for over 600 years and has carried out that task very well indeed? How does my noble and learned friend equate this proposal with policies on devolution and the move from centralisation to regionalisation and government for the regions? Surely the three areas of Lancashire have all the attributes required in the manifesto for regional authority. Thirdly, is my noble and learned friend aware that the Duchy of Lancaster provides a considerable amount of money to the Exchequer for the appointment of magistrates?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. As I indicated in my earlier Answer, a consultation process is under way. I shall certainly ensure that my right honourable friend in another place is aware of his views.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, are there any figures to show that a change in the present arrangements would lead to greater efficiency or would be cheaper? Is there any evidence to indicate that appointments made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are in any way inferior to those made by the Lord Chancellor? Is the Minister aware that magistrates in our part of the country are proud to be appointed by the Queen in her capacity as Duke of Lancaster, and resent this pointless piece of tinkering and this attempt to tear up 600 years of history?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for those views. So far as concerns expense and quality, those aspects will no doubt be examined during the course of the consultation process. Again, as with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I will ensure that the views expressed are passed on to my right honourable friend.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, while I welcome what the Minister has just said, does he accept that, although the consultation process has been a courteous exercise, the letter from the Cabinet Office did not include any detail of the opposition that has now emerged from the Lord Lieutenancies in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside? As other speakers have said, there is now increasing resistance to the proposals in the north-west of England. Will the Government please attach due weight to the views of the Lord Lieutenants in those areas? Will they recognise that, wherever possible, subsidiarity is the principle that should count?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the consultation document set out the basic proposal in a neutral way and sought views. Further consultation will now take place. I have no doubt that, in considering what to do, the Government will take into account all the views expressed in the course of consultation.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, will my noble friend take into account that the views being expressed are not those of all the people in Lancashire, or indeed all the magistrates there, and that a wider consultation is certainly needed in relation to this matter?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I hope indicated in my original Answer, my right honourable friend in another place is further seeking views and is also arranging for a press release to newspapers in the Duchy area inviting local people to express their views. Anyone who has not yet expressed a view still has an opportunity to do so.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords—
Lord McNally: My Lords, has the Minister—
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, not the coalition partners again!
Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Lord must control himself. I did not know that the Duchy of Lancaster extended to Chingford! Will the Minister explain the origins of this—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not think that during the course of this Question, the Liberal Democrats have asked a question. Perhaps it is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the problem that the House faces is that the Minister has not explained in any way what has caused the consultation. Is there not a good old maxim: "If it works, don't fix it"? The chancellery of the Duchy of Lancaster works very well in appointing magistrates.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the consultation will consider whether it is appropriate to transfer the responsibility for the appointment of magistrates from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the Lord Chancellor. That is the purpose of the consultation.

Census (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill he now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 51 [The Inspector's remit]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 20, line 30, leave out ("for persons") and insert ("provided in the further education sector and special needs education sector and which is suitable to the requirements of those").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 108, 109, and 127 to 129 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tope. The purpose of the amendments is to rationalise and simplify the post-16 inspection system.
As set out in the Bill, the system is shared between two inspectorates, the adult learning inspectorate—code-named ALI—and the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools (Ofsted). As I made clear in Committee, our objections to the system rest on three issues, the first being its complexity. As my noble friend Lord Tope said at Second Reading,
"Why on earth do we have the anomaly of two inspection agencies falling over each other to inspect the [post-16] provision? Why do we need complex rules about 'joint inspection' and a 'common inspection framework'? The obvious and radical answer is to have a single inspection agency for all post-16 education and training which will see its work in the context of lifelong learning".—[Official Report, 17/1/00; col. 939.]
Our second objection is the degree to which the system reinforces and perpetuates the binary divide between education and training. We had a long debate about this issue both in Committee and on earlier amendments on Report which I tabled yesterday. In his replies on both occasions, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, made it clear that it is the Government's intention that the Bill should move firmly away from this divided system. Yet, when we discussed the amendments on the inspectorate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—who, incidentally, has sent me a letter regretting the fact that he cannot be present today as he has to be in hospital—said:
"I have been involved in education for a number of years and throughout that period I have been concerned that we have had two cultures: the culture of what I describe as academic education and the culture of vocational—applied—training".—[Official Report, 15/2/2000; col. 1181.]
He pointed out that the structure of the proposed inspectorates, far from being one of partnership, put ALI—the vocational arm—into a totally subordinate position. He warned that that might make it difficult to recruit good people to the inspectorate and, even more damaging, that it might put at risk:
"that distinctive contribution which is needed for a community of learners which is adult rather than young, part-time rather than full-time, and possibly needing greater encouragement to engage
1444
in education and upskilling. After all, we are trying to create an adult learning society. If the Government are set on this particular approach, the result may be damaging to the Government's aspirations".—[Official Report, 15/2/2000; col. 1145.]
There is a different ethos in the further education sector from that in the schools sector. ALI, which will presumably take over from the Further Education Funding Council inspectorate and the National Training and Skills Council inspectorate, would reflect that ethos, whereas Ofsted has no experience and track record in the sector. We are not alone in believing that Ofsted methodology is appropriate. The CBI, British Chambers of Commerce and National Skills Task Force have all expressed reservations about the extent to which the two methodologies are compatible.
The colleges themselves have great reservations. In evidence to us, the FE21 group of colleges spoke of being compelled the follow the achievement-oriented ethos of the Ofsted inspection regime to the detriment of encouraging non-traditional learners into education. The burden of views submitted to the DfEE during consultation was overwhelming. Of 250 submissions, 249 advised against joint inspections. Only one—the FEFC, which is a Government-appointed body—was in favour of the proposals, yet the Government push ahead with them.
In Committee, the Minister's main objection to our proposals was that it would be a "terrible mistake" to restrict Ofsted's role in post-16 education because of the "experience and rigour" it would bring to A-level inspections. She claimed that the present system was not working because:
"In effect, you have one group of inspectors inspecting A-level provision in schools and a totally different group of inspectors inspecting A-level provision in FE colleges. This is what the Government are addressing: we want a single group of inspectors taking the lead in inspecting 16 to 19 provision and a single group of inspectors taking the lead in inspecting the specialist aspects of work-based training and adult education".—[Official Report, 15/2/2000: col.1148.]
Surely that view of the world is just as flawed. Where 16 to 19 year-olds are in work-based training, the off-the-job element that might be described as education is just as important as the job element. If it is a question of the rigour of inspection, that can be coped with under the guidance given by the Secretary of State to ALI. As for experience, given the ways in which teams of inspectors are today put together and contracted for specific tasks, there is no problem for the ALI in hiring inspectors with experience of A-level.
The amendments would draw a clear distinction between the two sets of inspectors—putting them on a par with each other, not making ALI the junior partner. The amendments would make it clear that the remit of chief inspectors of adult education extends to school and school-based sixth forms, and that ALI would have responsibility for all post-16 education and training in the non-school-based further education sector. That clear and simple distinction has the support of the majority of the community and makes common sense. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am a little disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and her colleagues have revisited questions that they raised in Committee and are arguing for the exclusion of Ofsted from the new post-16 inspection regime. I will describe again the reasons for the Government's policy and explain why I cannot accept the arguments.
The idea that there should only be one inspectorate under the Bill does not hold water. No one is suggesting that Ofsted should not inspect school sixth forms. Although amendments were tabled in Committee—but wisely not moved—that ALI should inspect school sixth forms, I am glad that the noble Baroness has decided that that particular policy would not make sense.
If it is agreed that Ofsted should inspect school sixth forms, why should it not inspect sixth form colleges? The profile of qualifications taken by 16 to 18 year-olds in school sixth forms is virtually identical to that taken by 16 to 18 year-olds in sixth form colleges. The profile of courses taken by full-time 16 to 18 year-olds in general FE colleges is not dissimilar, although in FE there is a slightly higher percentage of students taking vocational options than in sixth forms. It is untrue to suggest, as the noble Baroness did, that the vast majority of 16 to 19 year-olds in FE colleges or the FE sector are doing work-based learning. Nearly half of all students taking A-levels and GNVQs are in the FE sector.
Those facts illustrate the logic behind our proposals. Ofsted has the expertise and experience to take a really good look at 16 to 18 provision outside work-based learning, across colleges and sixth forms. It has particular strengths in the assessment of teacher performance and student achievements both of which are critical to successful inspection. I am not prepared to let the new post-16 inspection regime develop without a substantial input from Ofsted.
I assure the noble Baroness that fears that colleges will be subject to a double burden of inspection are without foundation. We are legislating for a single inspection of colleges, by a team of inspectors from both inspectorates looking at the whole picture. The balance of the team will reflect the nature of the provision. In sixth form colleges, the inspectors are likely to be mostly from Ofsted. Where adult provision dominates, ALI inspectors are likely to be in the majority. There will be a single report reflecting the collective judgments of all the inspectors. Once again, I dispute the noble Baroness's comment that there are two totally different cultures and that the methodology pursued by Ofsted would be completely inappropriate. We are working towards a common framework. The inspectorates are doing that now.
The noble Baroness suggested that of all the responses to our proposals, only the FEFC was in favour of joint inspection. I received letters last year from colleges expressing fears that there would be two inspectors in every class—one from ALI and the other from Ofsted—where there were students both above and below the age of 19. My ministerial colleagues and I, and my officials, have worked hard to dispel those myths, not least by setting out our inspection proposals
1446
in the Learning and Skills Council prospectus that we issued before Christmas. Since then, colleges have been substantially reassured by our proposals.
I should also like to address in more detail the suggestion that the Ofsted "culture" is inappropriate for the mix of learning that takes place in colleges. As I explained in Committee, we see the new regime under the common inspection framework as building on the best elements of the current systems. There is a strong case for incorporating Ofsted's observational approach into a model which also looks at self-evaluation by the provider. We want to draw from and build on both traditions and create a system of inspection which benefits from both approaches.
We certainly need to look carefully at the precise reasons for patchy performance in some parts of the post-16 world: a range of performance across all strands of education and training is far too great. Therefore, appraisal of teaching and student achievement is very important. At the same time, I do not think that anyone doubts the importance and value of self-evaluation—I do not—as one means of promoting continuous self-improvement. It is a way of involving staff in their own self- improvement. It will be a permanent feature for all providers in the LSC world. And we will want a means by which providers can judge whether they are evaluating themselves accurately.
This is an important issue on which I hope that I have now made the Government's position clear. There is great diversity in post-16 education and it is not easy to find a simple solution to inspection. I believe, however, that our proposals will help to bring about that permanent improvement in standards that we all want to see. The value of a common framework, the close co-operation between the two individual and independent inspectorates, and the synergy produced by drawing from the strengths of different traditions will, I hope, produce a new excellent and dynamic inspection system. The noble Baroness referred to the divide between the academic and vocational. That will not be a huge chasm which young people and adult students are unable to jump; the system will be brought together so that there will be no such divide. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, which was not totally unexpected. On these Benches we remain unhappy about the degree to which the adult learning inspectorate remains the junior partner within the proposed arrangements. I am reassured by the noble Baroness's remarks about attempts to forge the joint working of the two inspectorates. The Minister spoke of the diversity of the sector. We believe that that demands a separate inspection system. The proposed arrangements are complex. The simplicity of the ALI having remit over the further education sector, and Ofsted over the schools sector, has much advantage. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 20, line 39, after ("training") insert ("other than higher education").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 111 I speak also to Amendment No. 115.
The higher education world is concerned about another aspect of the inspection arrangements in the Bill. For example, the Association of University Teachers sees as a possible threat a further avalanche of bureaucracy being introduced into the system on top of the system already in place.
The quality of provision of higher education courses is currently examined by peer group (the external examiner system); the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education; internal university audit; Ofsted, for initial teacher training; and the research assessment exercise, for research in higher education. Surely that is enough. There is no case for superimposing any further inspection arrangements.
University teachers hold the principle of academic freedom to be of supreme importance. That subject has been discussed on many occasions in this House. However, they see it as a worrying development if the Government decided to create for themselves a reserve power whereby they could control the provision and content of higher education courses. Although the Association of University Teachers has communicated with the Government for clarification, as yet it has merely been referred to the Committee stage debate and that is not particularly enlightening.
The Government have made clear that the Bill should not extend to higher education, and this has been underlined by the Minister in her Second Reading speech and in the legislation itself where the phrase "other than higher education" is reiterated many times. But the provisions under Clause 51 of the Bill as currently drafted do not include such clarity. Instead there is a loose reference under Clause 51(1)(e) to,
"such other education or training (which may, in particular, include training of or for teachers or lecturers) as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
The training of teachers in higher education is already covered by Ofsted under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. This clause will add yet another organisation to the long list of inspection regimes in that sector.
Will the Government clarify the extent of the proposed adult learning inspectorate for the purposes of lecturers in higher education and the training of teachers in higher education? I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is an important amendment. I have been unable to take part in the Bill until now. However, I have listened to my noble friend. The Association of University Teachers represents, as the Minister knows well, many people who have been driven mad by the number of inspections which pull in a number of different
1448
directions. People cannot get on with their job because of them. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will express some understanding of the position described here. It is not special pleading. It is a cri de coeur from people who are being driven crazy by the Government's impositions upon them.
Lord Bach: My Lords, we debated at some length during Committee the precise scope of this power to extend the remit of the ALI and in particular the provisions for teacher training. In the light of that debate, the Government have decided that it would be appropriate to clarify the Bill—in particular to demonstrate that we are not concerned here with the inspection of training for school teachers. That is the point of the government amendment to which I shall speak after I have spoken to the noble Baroness's amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be helpful if I may press the noble Lord a little more. We are addressing whether further education teachers and/or lecturers are taught in higher education. It is not the training of school teachers.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am aware of that. Perhaps the noble Baroness will give me a little longer to explain the position. The noble Baroness has tabled her own amendments to clarify the position. We cannot accept them.
Amendments Nos. 111 and 115 would mean that the adult learning inspectorate would be unable to inspect further education teacher training which qualifies as a course of higher education. The consequence would be that the ALI would be able to inspect only some but not all FE teacher training.
Noble Lords may find it helpful to know that FE teacher training is provided at two levels. First, there are City and Guilds qualifications, usually provided directly in colleges. Since this is further education provision for adults, the adult learning inspectorate will scrutinise it under its normal remit. Secondly, FE teacher training is also made in the form of the Certificate of Education or the PGCE in Further Education, and much of this training is franchised by HE institutions to further education institutions. However, it is defined within Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 as "higher education".
The Government have very recently issued a consultation paper on compulsory teaching qualifications for teachers in further education. In that paper we stress our expectation that staff involved in teaching post-16 education and training should be appropriately qualified. It follows that better and more extensive FE teacher training will be needed in the next few years. Coherent inspection arrangements are a crucial part of the plan to raise FE teaching standards.
We want to use the regulation-making power to ensure that the ALI has a potential role in all further education teacher training so that it can bring its expertise to bear across the whole of this important area. Therefore, through the regulations, the remit of the ALI will extend to include provision in the small

1449
number of universities which run specialist postgraduate certificates of education for teachers in further education. It will not include—and I stress this—initial teacher training for schoolteachers. Ofsted already inspects this provision which takes place in higher education.
It is very important to allow the ALI to form a comprehensive judgment about standards in the training of FE teachers, lecturers and vocational trainers. We hope that the House will accept the government amendments rather than the amendments of the noble Baroness. I shall now speak to the amendments.
Perhaps I may begin by assuring the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that we do not intend to extend the remit of the ALI to include the training of schoolteachers. I think she has accepted that point. Amendments Nos. 112 and 114, which the Government propose in respect of Clause 51, and Amendments Nos. 117, 118 and 119, which necessarily follow at Clause 52(4) and (5), make clear that we are concerned with the inspection of the teachers, lecturers and trainers in FE colleges and work-based training. Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 in this group in respect of Clause 73 have a similar effect for Wales.
A further government amendment, Amendment No. 120, is necessary—for the avoidance of doubt—to maintain consistency between the terminology in Clause 52(2) to (5) where "specify" is used in a similar context.
I hope that to some extent the concerns of the noble Baronesses opposite are removed. I hope they agree that FE teacher training should be inspected by one organisation, that organisation being the ALI.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not impressed with the response. There is real concern, not just about this amendment and how higher and further education and teacher training will be inspected, but about all the points that were raised on the previous set of amendments. There is incredible disquiet about the way in which the ALI and Ofsted are going to work and about the interaction between further and higher education inspections. The answer is deeply unsatisfactory. I shall return to the matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 20, line 39, leave out from ("training") to ("as") in line 40.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 20, line 41, at end insert—
("() facilities for providing information, advice or guidance about education or training or connected matters secured by the Council under section 12(5) of this Act or by the Secretary of State under section 9 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 for persons over the age of 19").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tope I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 145 which is grouped with it. The amendment relates to the inspection of careers advice and guidance in the further and adult education sectors. We argued the case in Committee. The Minister responded by saying:
"We intend, however, that the inspection and quality assurance of information, advice and guidance provision should be carried out by the independent Accreditation Board that was set up last year by the Guidance Council with support from my department. So there is an existing body with specialist expertise available to carry out this work".—[Official Report, 15/2/00: col. 1166.]
She continued, at col. 1167:
"Secondly, and most importantly in responding to the noble Lord, information, advice and guidance is a specialist activity. Many of those providing information, advice and guidance are not learning providers. They operate in a quite different context".
We are not convinced by these arguments. Is the Guidance Council the right body to do this work? Is it appropriate when so much of the guidance given in further education comes from within the workplace? Guidance for adults on learning and career opportunities is delivered, especially for small and medium-sized businesses, often by line managers and supervisors rather than by specialist training or personnel officers. Increasingly, learning representatives within trade union structures play an important role. We are not convinced that the Guidance Council standards were designed with such a wide audience in mind, particularly one where the professional standards of other national training organisation bodies are concerned. So far, the inspections have been undertaken by the National Training Council and the Further Education and Funding Council Inspectorate. Both bodies have a clear understanding of workplace cultures and their inspection and have the necessary expertise to undertake this function. As both bodies will be incorporated within the new adult learning inspectorate, it seems obvious that that body should take on the responsibility.
Amendment No. 145 relates to the inspection of the new Connexions service for post-16 education. As this is non-school-based careers advice and guidance, it is obvious that the adult learning inspectorate rather than Ofsted is the appropriate body to inspect such guidance. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, Amendment No. 113 would place the inspection of information, advice and guidance services for adults within the remit of the adult learning inspectorate. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke to a similar amendment in Committee. As I said then, we intend that the inspection of this provision should be carried out by the Guidance Accreditation Board which was set up last year by the Guidance Council with support from my department. I should like to emphasise that the Guidance Accreditation Board is independent of the Guidance Council and that, under the inspection and quality assurance regime, we intend that they will have

1451
fundamentally different roles. There can be no question of their roles becoming confused. Perhaps I may expand on that.
The Guidance Council will be responsible for maintaining and updating the quality standards and for providing advice and support to practitioners on how to interpret them. Organisations which are delivering information, advice and guidance for adults as part of local learning partnerships will be required to comply with the Guidance Council's quality standards by April 2002. The accreditation board, by contrast, will be responsible for inspecting provision; for assessing whether providers meet the quality standards; and, where necessary, for withdrawing their accreditation.
There are four reasons why it is most appropriate to secure the inspection and quality assurance of information, advice and guidance for adults through the route I have described rather than through the ALI. First, information, advice and guidance is a specialist activity. It is a quite different process from teaching and learning, and many of the bodies which deliver it on a local level are not learning providers. They have no role in providing learning. Instead, they are highly specialised organisations with particular expertise in this field. That is why we have chosen the distinctive approach to the inspection of this activity that I have spelled out.
Secondly, the arrangement with the Guidance Council and the Guidance Accreditation Board that I have described is already up and running, contrary to what the noble Baroness implied in her introduction. It has been in development for some years. We and the council consulted extensively about the quality standards and the accreditation regime that will be at its heart. They command wide support among practitioners. Placing responsibility for inspecting information, advice and guidance provision with the ALI would disrupt and delay the benefits of a quality regime for adult information, advice and guidance, when a more appropriate system has recently been put in place. That would not be in the interests of the clients of the service who benefit from its use.
Thirdly, the delivery of information, advice and guidance for adults is extremely diffuse. It is not just a question of provision made by careers services or by FE institutions for their own students, important though that is. Under our policy, information, advice and guidance is being delivered by a wide range of organisations, including community and voluntary bodies and libraries as well as employers. The plans we have been discussing with the Guidance Council are based on the assumption that up to 1,500 provider organisations will need to be accredited between now and the end of 2001–02. Many of these are not learning providers at all. The sheer numbers involved and their diversity make an accreditation regime of the kind that is already in operation essential. Placing responsibility for the inspection of this provision with the ALI would significantly increase the number of organisations with which the ALI would have to deal, for little obvious gain.
1452
Finally, the arrangements through the Guidance Council are not just about the accreditation of provisions that will be funded by the LSC or even about publicly-funded provision more widely. Much provision in the adult guidance field is in the private sector and will continue to be paid for by employers and individuals. It will be open to such private sector organisations to seek accreditation from the Guidance Accreditation Board, too. Not only will accreditation give an assurance about the quality of private sector provision, it will also help to reduce the cost to the taxpayers of these arrangements, as such providers will pay a fee to the accreditation board. The Guidance Council's business plan for these arrangements envisages that, depending on the level of fee income achieved, they will be self-financing over the medium term.
I turn to Amendment No. 145. It would further extend the ALI's remit to include inspection of the new Connexions service. An amendment similar to this was debated in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, suggested then that the Connexions agenda is closer to that of the chief inspector of adult learning than that of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. I must beg to differ. The provision to be inspected by the ALI will be totally different from that of the Connexions service. Although the ALI will inspect all post-16 work-based training, the lion's share of the ALI's remit, as its name suggests, will be learning provision for adults. The Connexions service will be for 13 to 19 year-olds.
The noble Baroness suggested that the ALI was the better-suited inspectorate because the Connexions service would be addressing social exclusion, including through encouraging young people to take up vocational learning. First, I do not believe that we or others should be putting out a message that disaffected young people are not expected to re-engage with more academic learning, where that may, in fact, be more appropriate in some cases. We should ensure that that opportunity is kept open to them.
More importantly, I want to take this opportunity to remind noble Lords that the Connexions service will provide a wide range of services for all young people, including those who are already achieving. Indeed, in the majority of cases, its role will be less about tackling social exclusion issues than about providing timely support for young people's learning and career choices. It will be concerned with the provision of information, advice and guidance about learning, together with a whole range of other support services for young people, rather than with the provision of actual education and training.
We believe that Ofsted is well positioned to carry out inspection of the Connexions service because it has the relevant broad experience with the age group concerned. Ofsted inspects LEA youth services and education work with young offenders. As part of its school inspection responsibilities, Ofsted inspects careers and drugs education in schools and is familiar with behavioural and attendance issues. As I indicated in Committee, Ofsted's remit also includes LEA inspections. These are focused on educational

1453
standards and school improvement issues, but they also cover a wide range of other LEA activity, including effective partnership working and LEA support to pupils with particular needs.
We are convinced that Ofsted's experience makes it the better choice for the inspection of the Connexions service. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, which was not totally unexpected. I continue to question whether she is right in putting so much emphasis on the role of the Guidance Council. We received briefing from the National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education (NIACE), which stated:
"As a member of the Guidance Council since its inception, NIACE welcomes the confidence which the Government has in the organisation, its quality standards and its Accreditation Board. We are not, however, convinced that this arrangement (will work]".
It goes on to state that, as it stands, the Guidance Council does not have the capacity to take on the inspection nor does it have a track record in such territory. I was interested that the Minister noted that during the next few years 1,500 guidance organisations will need to be accredited. Given the role of accreditation, the additional role of inspection will be a considerable burden on the organisation.
As regards my second amendment, again, the reply was not unexpected. Our perception that the chief inspector of adult learning should be the chief inspector is linked to the fact that we should like to see a clear distinction between the two roles of Ofsted and the ALI and that all non-school-based education and learning should be under the remit of the ALI. In that case, it would have made much sense for the ALI also to have been the main inspector of the Connexions service. I wonder what place the Guidance Council might have. Given its role, it might be more appropriate for it to consider the advice and guidance issued in relation to the Connexions service. I am not fully satisfied with the responses, but, for the moment, I beg leave to with draw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 20, line 41, at end insert—
("() Regulations made under subsection (1)(e) may include within the Inspectorate's remit training of or for teachers, lecturers, trainers or other persons engaged in the provision of education or training which otherwise falls within the Inspectorate's remit.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Clause 52 [Functions of the Inspectorate and Chief Inspector]:
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 117 to 120:
Page 21, line 18, leave out from ("remit") to ("as") in line 19.
Page 21, line 22, leave out from ("remit") to ("as") in line 23.
Page 21, line 24, at end insert—
("() The functions specified under subsection (4) or (5) may include functions with respect to training of or for teachers, lecturers, trainers or other persons engaged in the provision of education or training which falls within the Inspectorate's remit.").
Page 21, line 27, leave out ("direct") and insert ("specify").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 21, line 27, at end insert—
("() The Inspectorate and the Chief Inspector must have regard to the assessment of needs included in the local learning and skills council's annual plan under section 22.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 121, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 130. These are small, but I believe useful, amendments. Clause 22 requires local learning and skills councils to produce an annual plan, part of which must include the statement of needs in relation to the education and training of their local population. The purpose of the first amendment is to require the inspectorate and the chief inspector to have regard to that assessment of needs. Amendment No. 130 makes a similar provision with regard to area inspections to be carried out by the Chief Inspector of Schools.
As I said, these are small and simple amendments. However, if the plans are in place, the needs are stated and the requirements made, then it is right that the inspector, when carrying out that role, should have, regard to them and should report on the extent to which they are being fulfilled. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one small question. I am not in any way critical of the noble Lord who proposed the amendment, but I would have assumed that the inspectorate and the chief inspector naturally would have regard to the assessment included in the local learning and skills council's annual plan. I should be interested to know whether the noble Lord has any grounds for believing that they might not carry out that very obvious task. If he had such grounds, I would support him; if not, I do not believe that it would serve any useful purpose.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as this is the Report stage, perhaps I shall allow the noble Lord, Lord Tope, to respond to that question when he rises. Amendments 121 and 130 relate to Clause 22 of the Bill, under which local learning and skills councils must prepare plans which assess the needs of the local area. These two amendments would link both the adult learning inspectorate and Ofsted closely to that process by requiring them to have regard to the assessment of a local area's needs and to inspect the implementation of the local LSC's plans. I do not believe that that would be a very good idea. I believe that it would blur the distinction between the roles of

1455
two quite independent bodies—the inspectorates on one hand and the LSC on the other. The inspectorates are not really planning organizations; they examine the whole area of the quality of provision made by learning providers.
Under Clause 22, the local LSC acts as a planning body to ensure that local provision matches the aspirations of local communities. Of course, as a matter of routine, good inspection will encompass a knowledge of local conditions and current trends, as I believe was implied by the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. However, as I have said already, neither the adult learning inspectorate nor Ofsted is interested primarily in the process of planning. They should be independent, objective organisations which are interested in the outcomes achieved by education and training providers. During the course of an area inspection, where it is necessary to examine the effectiveness of the way in which the LSC has applied its resources, the Bill already contains the necessary provisions. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will understand why I cannot accept the amendments and that he will not press them.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, not only for her reply to me but, in effect, for her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I would have made the same assumption as did the noble Lord. As I believed she would, the Minister made clear to both of us that we would have been wrong in that assumption for the reasons that she has given. I am not entirely satisfied on this matter because I believe that the inspectors must have regard to the objectives and to whether they will be met. However, I shall not press the matter further today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 122:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
AREA INSPECTIONS BY THE CHIEF INSPECTOR
(".—(1) The Chief Inspector of Adult Learning may, on his own initiative, conduct an inspection of—

(a) the quality and availability of a specified description of education or training, in a specified area of England, for persons who are aged 16 or over;

(b) the standards achieved by those receiving that education or training; and

(c) whether the financial resources made available to those providing that education and training are managed efficiently and used in a way which provides value for money.

(2) The Chief Inspector of Adult Learning must carry out such an inspection if asked to do so by the Secretary of State.
(3) If the Learning and Skills Council or a local education authority has applied financial resources in respect of education or training which is being inspected under this section, the inspection may extend to considering the manner in which the Council or that authority has applied those resources and whether they have been applied in a way which provides value for money.
(4) The education or training that may be made the subject of an area inspection is any education or training within—

(a) the Adult Learning Inspectorate's remit; or

(b) the remit of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for England.

(5) If, in connection with an area inspection, the Chief Inspector asks Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for England for advice on a matter relating to education or training within his remit, he must give such advice as he considers likely to be appropriate for the purposes of the inspection.
(6) A person providing education or training which is the subject of an area inspection must provide the Chief Inspector with any information reasonably asked for by him in connection with the inspection.
(7) Any local education authority whose area, or part of whose area, is within the area which is the subject of an area inspection must provide the Chief Inspector with such information as the Chief Inspector may reasonably ask for in connection with the inspection.
(8) "Area inspection" means an inspection under this section.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 122, I wish to speak also to the amendments grouped with it. These provisions follow on directly from the arguments that I have already put forward in relation to the adult learning inspectorate. The aim of the amendments is to place on the chief inspector of adult education a responsibility analogous to that given to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England: to initiate and to undertake area inspections which relate to his remit of inspecting further and higher education institutions in England.
Our reasons for tabling these amendments are similar to those that I have already put forward for extending the adult learning inspectorate's remit to cover all further and adult education institutions. As we have argued, the ethos and the mode of teaching in further and adult sectors differs significantly from that in schools. The factors which have shaped Ofsted's approach are wholly different from those which have shaped the approach of the FEFC and the Training Standards Council inspectorate. Ofsted has neither experience nor interest in adult education. Indeed, even though the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 gave Ofsted powers to make inspections of adult and community education, in the seven years between 1992 and 1998, only 12 such inspections took place.
When we raised these issues in Committee, the Minister made clear in her reply that Ofsted should be in the lead because of its wide experience gained from inspecting sixth forms and the database derived from that experience about the characteristics of effective sixth forms and level 3 qualifications. She said that Ofsted not only has the most extensive expertise in this area, it has the majority of the 16 to 18 remit under the Bill's provision. She said that Ofsted should lead, and that it would be ludicrous to cut it out of the equation and make its role a minor one.
Is that really so? The logic of our suggested reforms is that the new adult learning inspectorate should have the remit for all non-school, post-16 education. So much in that remit is non-A-level based that it makes

1457
just as much sense for ALI as for Ofsted to take the lead in the inspections. It has the expertise and the knowledge ill that area.
Contrary to what the Minister said at the previous stage, there is no reason why Ofsted should automatically lead area inspections when they relate not to schools but to the community and further and adult education. As I said, Ofsted has had the remit in that area but has shown very little interest in that remit. It does not understand its ways or its ethos. By contrast, those who will form the core of the adult learning inspectorate, coming as they do from the Further Education Funding Council and the national Training Standards Council, have shown an interest and have the expertise. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, again, we are returning to an issue which we debated quite extensively in Committee. In arguing that ALI, not Ofsted, should have the remit for post-16 inspection, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has built on the same principles that the Liberal Democrat Benches set out a little while ago under the amendments to Clause 51. In a sense, these amendments are linked.
In the debate in Committee, I believe and hope that I gave a fairly comprehensive overview of area inspections and explained why the focus was on 16 to 18 provision and not on adults. This matter does not relate to adults. There is a major need to raise the standard of provision for young people in certain areas. Those areas are usually, but not exclusively, in urban communities, where we know, and I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware, that the quality of what is being provided and the standards being achieved are simply not sufficient. We know that in such areas, both participation and attainment are too low. That means that the life chances of far too many young people are not what they should be. The inspections will therefore be a major contribution to raising the standard, but also to improving the relevance of provision for young people, who must have access to high quality education and training.
The same issues do not arise in post-19 learning. Of course we all want to expand adult participation. We want to create a learning society. We want to make it possible for far more adults to go on learning throughout their lives. Naturally we have plans not only to expand, but to improve the quality of learning available for adults. We are already taking a number steps to do that, especially, for example, in improving basic skills provision. We know from Sir Claus Moser's report that there are some 6 or 7 million adults whose basic literacy, numeracy and ability to function in an IT world are all limited. The ALI will be a significant influence in the overall drive to raise standards of provision for adults.
It is perhaps worth explaining further that the inspections are the means by which it can be judged whether the LSC and LEAs are making provision of sufficient quantity and adequate quality. Where there are deficiencies or inadequacies, I am afraid to say that far too many young people are being seriously let
1458
down. If that is happening, we need a prompt as well as an appropriate solution. That is something we have to get on with as a matter of urgency.
We have earlier today debated the role of Ofsted in post-16 provision. I believe that the House has now accepted—although I readily concede that the noble Baroness is not altogether happy about it—that Ofsted has a crucial role and I do not want to repeat the key arguments again in full detail. Ofsted has inspected every school with a sixth form, and has published a range of influential reports on the characteristics of effective sixth forms, as well as on level 3 qualifications. It is, quite simply, widely acknowledged to be a powerful influence in enhancing standards and quality across the range of its work. That should apply to 16 to 19 year-olds too.
It is therefore axiomatic that Ofsted should lead the area inspections, given its overall 16 to 18 remit, which we have already debated, although I want to say perhaps this will provide some reassurance to the noble Baroness—that the adult learning inspectorate will naturally give key help and assistance. But the Government will not accept a series of amendments which would give that vital work to the adult learning inspectorate alone, to the exclusion of Ofsted.
I shall summarise. We need area inspections to have a 16 to 18 focus in order to ensure that local providers really do meet local needs, including the labour market need for well qualified young people. Where 16 to 18 standards need to be raised, we must ensure that there is a sound basis for intervention. Our provisions in Clauses 63 to 65 will secure that policy. While I am pleased that the noble Baroness shares our commitment to the value of area inspections, I feel bound to say that her amendments would divert us from our primary purpose. For those reasons, I greatly hope that she will not press the amendments.
4 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Again, I am not surprised by it. I am glad that she recognises that on this side of the House we support the Government's general push to raise the standards of 16 to 19 education. What we find difficult constantly is the junior role given to the adult learning inspectorate in relation to Ofsted. That is at the core of our disquiet about the proposals. We can see no reason why that organisation should constantly have to play second fiddle in a junior role to Ofsted, nor why Ofsted's empire should continue to expand in such a way.
We should greatly like to see the development within the adult learning inspectorate of a core of standards which is appropriate and applicable to the further and adult education sector. The series of amendments we have tabled on the subject were aimed at doing precisely that; to develop the adult learning inspectorate into a body equivalent to Ofsted in its standards in that area and to develop within the inspectorate the concept of the team mentality which exists within Ofsted. However, we accept what the

1459
Minister has said on this occasion. I am not totally happy with the response, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 123 and 124 not moved.]
Clause 55 [Right of entry and offences]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 22, line 42, at end insert—
("() In respect of education and training provided by an employer in the workplace, the right of entry may be exercised only if the employer has been given reasonable notice in writing.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise simply to ask the Minister why it has seemed necessary to put in a requirement in Clause 76(2) to give reasonable notice in writing before the inspectorate wishes for access to the premises of workplace employers in Wales, but it is not deemed appropriate to make similar provision for England. The CBI, which speaks for business and commerce throughout the country, believes that it is important to have similar arrangements for business people in both Wales and England. That is why my amendment seeks to achieve parity with Clause 76. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should like to say that I support entirely what my noble friend has said. I greatly hope that the Government will accept what seems an extremely modest amendment. It is incumbent on us sitting in Parliament to see that the official world is not handed every possible power and right which its representatives believe may be convenient to them. Such matters must be justified. I hope that the Minister will proceed to do so, or to accept my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Bach: My Lords, we had a good debate on the right of entry to premises when considering this clause in Committee last month. The noble Baroness has returned to the fray on this occasion with a different amendment.
Perhaps I may surprise the noble Baroness—indeed, even amaze her. We accept the principle behind the points she makes. Indeed, it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is surprised as well—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: No, my Lords, I am too charitable to be entirely surprised.
Lord Bach: Employers are in a different situation from colleges and schools, in that they are not solely concerned with education. We want to ensure that inspection will not interfere unduly with normal business. Of course, we see the point the noble Baroness makes about the provisions adopted in Wales, which require that employers must be given reasonable notice in writing before inspectors exercise their right of entry. We are a government who listen.
However—I am sure the noble Baroness will understand this from her days in government—we want to reflect carefully on the best way of giving effect
1460
to the proposal in the Bill. Therefore, while entirely conceding that the noble Baroness is right in this instance, I invite her to withdraw her amendment. The Government will bring forward their own amendment at a later stage of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I admit to being overwhelmed by that response. I am deeply grateful to the Minister. But I find it strange that the form of words is not used. The form of words is identical to that in Clause 76(2). It would seem appropriate to use the same form of words in this clause. Nevertheless, if wiser counsels prevail, I shall welcome an amendment at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 [The extended remit]:
[Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 not moved.]
Clause 59 [Additional functions of the Chief Inspector]:
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
Clause 60 [Inspection of further education institutions]:
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
Clause 63 [Area inspections]:
[Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 not moved.]
Clause 64 [Reports of area inspections]:
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
Clause 65 [Action plans following section 63 inspections]:
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
Clause 67 [The framework]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 28, line 24, at end insert—
("() The common set of principles shall cater for the different types of learning, including workplace learning and training.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 134 deals with the concern that the joint inspection framework will not accommodate workplace training. I hope, again, that the Minister will regard that as important.
The classroom is a different place from the college, and the college is a different place from the employer's workplace. Therefore, any training provided should recognise the cultural differences between the different training and education providers. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to address amendments to Clause 67. Although the common inspection framework has been mentioned in debates on other amendments, rather surprisingly, these are the first amendments which deal directly with it. Again, I do not want to surprise the noble Baroness too much. However, this is an area where I agree with what lies behind the amendment. I regard the matter as important. Work-based training is enormously important. It is a route for

1461
many young people, and should probably be so for larger numbers of young people than has been the case in the past.
I agree that these are important considerations and I therefore have no difficulty in principle with a great deal of what the noble Baroness said. The CBI set out similar arguments. Indeed, the noble Baroness may have been in touch with the CBI on this matter. It is self-evident that the common inspection framework is a document that must be flexible.
The wording of Clause 67(1) is important. There must be,
"a common set of principles applicable to all inspections … under this Part [of the Bill]".
That means that the principles must apply, for example, to the inspection of A-level Latin in sixth-form colleges; vocational qualifications; adult evening class provision and the work-based environment.
It will be no easy task to get that right; I am the first person to admit that. At the same time, as an optimist I am confident that it is possible to achieve it. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to explain to the House that some important preliminary work has taken place. I am enormously grateful to the three existing chief inspectors. Chris Woodhead from Ofsted, Jim Donaldson from the Further Education Funding Council inspectorate, David Sherlock of the TSC and many of their staff have been working extremely hard to draw up the draft framework which is a "prototype" of the statutory framework. It will therefore be possible, probably next month, to have non-statutory consultation on the framework principles. That will be in addition to the three-month statutory consultation which can take place only after enactment of the Bill.
I agree that it will be important to ensure that the new post-16 inspection system takes into account the special nature of workplace learning. As the TSC is one of the three partners developing the framework document, I am confident that we shall get it right. I know that it will express the same sort of sentiment expressed by the noble Baroness today.
Employers have a great deal of confidence in the TSC. It was highly commended recently by the CBI for the way it has developed a rigorous and positive system for inspecting work-based provision. I am sure that we shall not find that employers are discouraged from offering training. We must certainly avoid that. One of the great challenges we face is to get every employer in this country to offer training to all employees.
I do not believe that Amendments Nos. 134 and 135, tabled by the noble Baroness, are necessary. We do not need any additional qualification on the face of the Bill. If we were to put a reference to workplace learning in this clause we should logically have to do the same for further education colleges or perhaps for the various different types of qualification. If we were to add more provisions, as in the amendment, we could run into the danger of making the framework less flexible, not more so. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept my reassurances about the way in which workplace learning will not only be accommodated
1462
but given substantial support and priority. In the light of that, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she can confirm a matter which she has not stated in the answers given today. One of the basic principles of learning is that one must start with a person's experience to date. The noble Baroness will know that from her previous distinguished service at Birkbeck College. It is critical that one should begin with a person's experience. An adult or young adult will have more experience than a very young person.
Can the Minister confirm that a set of principles will include the basing of teaching on a person's experience to date? Work-based education has the great advantage, however young the worker, of a common experience of the work being done, and that is where one can begin. The Minister has not said that.
I am making a single point in perhaps a somewhat complicated way. Will the set of principles include basing teaching on a person's experience to date, and if that person is at work, on his or her experience at work? If the set of principles includes that, the amendment will not be necessary.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have to be a little careful here in the sense that it is not right for Ministers to prescribe the nature of teaching; how it should be done and the methodology to be used, whether through the work-based route or college-based route. At the same time, I entirely accept the principle set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. One must take into account the experience of a young person or adult. That must be done by adult information and guidance, which we discussed earlier, when advising on the kind of programme to be entered. It must also be taken into account when we are setting up the type of programme to be followed by a young person on the work-based route.
I also accept the comments of the noble Baroness about the fact that those undertaking work-based education will share with their peers a common experience. That is a matter on which those undertaking the training and education to be provided should draw in their teaching. These are all matters for the inspectorates to take into account when carrying out their inspections. I am sure that they will do that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am at least comforted to hear that not just the principles but the training will include understanding the nature of the different providers. I should like to read exactly what the Minister has said, but I am encouraged. I accept some of the reasons given for not putting it on the face of the Bill. However, it is very important in the light of Pepper v. Hart that we have something which is quite unequivocal on the face of the Bill to show that this will be recognised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
Clause 73 [Additional junctions of the Chief Inspector for Wales]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 136 and 137:
Page 32, line 3, leave out from ("Part") to ("as") in line 4.
Page 32, line 4, at end insert—
("() The functions specified under subsection (3) may include functions with respect to training of or for teachers, lecturers, trainers or other persons engaged in the provision of education or training which is brought within the remit of the Chief Inspector for Wales by this Part.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 96 [Qualifying accounts]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 42, line 12, at end insert—
("() conditions relating to the provision or arrangement of support to enable persons with learning difficulties to manage an account;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to see, perhaps untypically at this tea-time hour, that your Lordships' House is gradually filling up. However, I am too old a thespian not to recognise that it is not I, with my individual learning accounts amendment, who am the star attraction, but the following amendment, No. 138A. I remember that once I played the Theatre Royal, Glasgow, and we broke the house record, playing to absolute capacity for eight performances on the trot. I knew it was not entirely due to me, but regretted that in fact it was because the famous Glaswegian Jimmie Logan was in the cast with me. So I am aware of when I am not the star attraction!
This is a probing amendment which seeks to ensure that individual learning accounts will be available to all adult learners, including those with learning difficulties who may require support in making decisions regarding how best to use their account and in managing their finances. I regret that I was unable to move this amendment at Committee stage, but better late than never, for individual learning accounts are a major strand in the Government's programme for life-long learning. The accounts will provide a mechanism to help individual learners to plan and manage their own learning. Learners will invest their own money in their accounts, but they are also intended to be a vehicle for government and employer contributions. The Government have already announced a package of financial incentives for the launch of individual learning accounts which will benefit learners considerably.
It is worth remembering that people with disabilities are more than twice as likely as other people to have no formal qualifications and are only half as likely to be in employment. Those who are employed typically work in low-paid jobs and many, particularly those with severe learning difficulties, depend entirely upon state disability benefits. I must stress that those statements come from the DfEE's own reports and are not figments of my fevered imagination. I, and indeed the entire Post-16 Consortium, therefore welcome the introduction of any scheme which seeks to eliminate financial barriers to life-long learning, and we
1464
recognise the importance of establishing a mechanism for individuals to plan their own finances to support their learning aspirations.
It is crucial that individual learning accounts, and the incentives attached to them, are open to all learners, including those with learning difficulties. Incentives such as discounted computer literacy courses could open up a variety of new opportunities for adults with learning difficulties who have not had a chance to learn such skills in the past.
I believe that all learners should have the opportunity to benefit from holding an account independently, but that help should be provided to make this possible.
Lessons can be learned from the experience of "direct payments", a mechanism for local authorities to make cash payments to community care users for the purchase of their own support. Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown that people with learning difficulties and disabilities have been excluded from pilot schemes. Others have been denied access to the scheme on the grounds that they lack competence, even though there has been no support available to assist them. Many have found it difficult to obtain accessible information about direct payments in the first place, and others who use the scheme have found it difficult to obtain accessible information about what choices are available to them.
Research concluded that continuing support is needed to enable people with learning difficulties to use a scheme such as direct payments successfully. Development work with people with learning difficulties and their supporters was deemed to be a necessary initial step. However, it was pointed out that no additional funding had been allocated for development work or for the operation of support systems.
What I am asking the Government, through this amendment, is to ensure that lessons are learned from the operation of the direct payments scheme and are applied to the operation of individual learning accounts. I should like to see a commitment on the face of the Bill that ensures that people with learning difficulties, with the necessary support, manage their own individual learning accounts and that there is a commitment to the proper resourcing of support systems so that people with learning difficulties are not excluded from incentives to life-long learning. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, as my name is attached to this amendment, I should like to support it very strongly. It has been very ably moved by the noble Lord. Lord Rix. The whole idea of individual learning accounts I like, and it is very important that those who are disabled should have the opportunity to make use of them. For that they will need help, I think. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, they can learn by means of some computer courses and information technology courses, and those can be invaluable to people with disabilities. Often, if they have difficulty in writing, they can manage a word processor very well, but they

1465
are going to need help with running their accounts. Therefore I hope very much that this amendment can be accepted by my noble friend.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I like the idea of being able to give people independence, and particularly to a group who had seemed to have it taken away from them by the way society is run. "Does he take sugar?" comes to mind when we think about being able to run an individual learning account—that is, being able to have some input into the process.
We are talking about support to enable people to do that. So often when we deal with disability issues we are talking about trying to enable people to have control over their own lives. This will be a small step towards encouraging such people to become a more integrated part of society. If that means giving some guidance on how to handle something themselves, I suggest that the Government should at least look very favourably at this amendment, because it relates to bringing a person on as an individual. I hope that the Government can give us a full answer on this.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is too modest. He is our Jimmie Logan; he is our star attraction as far as this debate is concerned. I am surprised that he should think it is any future debate that has attracted so many people into the Chamber this afternoon.
Individual learning accounts, or qualifying accounts as they are referred to in this clause, are indeed—to use the noble Lord's own words—a major strand of the Government's policy. They are designed to assist people of all abilities to access a wide range of learning opportunities. They are only one of many policies aimed at widening participation in learning, which should encompass all people, including people with learning difficulties and disabled people. I can assure the House that we take that very seriously indeed, as I hope has been reflected in our earlier debates on or around this particular topic and in the concessions made by the Government during the passage of this Bill, both at this stage and at Committee stage. We continue to look at how best we can support these people.
The learning account system will be simple for people to use. There will be help available both from a customer service centre and from learning providers on how to use the incentives and discounts to enhance their skills. People will open a learning account through the customer service centre. They will be able to do this in person, over the telephone, by post or, in the future, through the Internet. Once the individual has decided on the learning he or she wants to undertake, the customer service centre will identify the incentives that can be claimed under the scheme. The learner will pay the balance direct to the learning provider. The customer service centre will also easily provide information about whether learning will qualify for government support, the balance of a person's account and a record of their learning.
We plan to make links with others who can provide extra support so that people get the best possible service. Careers service providers, for example, and
1466
staff in "learndirect" centres will be available to help people with learning difficulties, whether this is about opening a learning account or accessing actual learning provision.
At the present time, we are also in discussion with relevant partners and interest groups to ensure that qualifying accounts meet the needs of individuals with learning difficulties. For example, we are exploring how we can make information available in various formats, such as in Braille or on tape, to suit all needs. I hope that the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that those discussions are continuing.
I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but we believe that it is simply not necessary to specify support for any specific group in respect of individual learning accounts on the face of the Bill. Our clear policy intention, which is no doubt supported by all sides of the House, with individual learning accounts is—as their name suggests—to help to meet the different requirements of different individuals. This is as true of the operation of the account as of the learning provision to which its incentives and discounts will apply. While of course we have sympathy with the intention behind this amendment—indeed, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling it because it has given us an opportunity to have this important discussion today—I would ask the noble Lord, having heard the assurances that I have given, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rix: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, although I am happy to accept his assurances, would it be possible to have a further assurance that people with learning difficulties could be included in some of the pilot schemes?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall not be able to answer the noble Lord directly, but I can say to him that we shall look into that matter. Our feelings are sympathetic towards the idea. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord in more detail in the near future.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am happy to accept that assurance and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 138A:
After Clause 97, insert the following new clause—
("Grammar schools: retention of selective admission arrangements
GRAMMAR SCHOOLS: RETENTION OF SELECTIVE ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS
In the School Standards and Framework Act 1998—

(a) in section 104 (designation of grammar schools), omit subsection (4),

(b) omit sections 105 to 108 (procedure for ballots to determine retention or discontinuance of selective admission arrangements),

(c) in section 109 (proposals by governing body to end selective admission arrangements), omit subsections (3)(b), and (4).").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall focus specifically on my own amendment. It seeks to remove the petition and balloting arrangements, which are designed to determine the fate of grammar schools, from the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
When the Government introduced the system of petitioning for signatures and ballots to determine the fate of grammar schools, it was obvious that a pernicious and relentless war of attrition would be unleashed on these schools. Those hostile to grammar schools busied themselves canvassing for signatures, chose what they deemed to be a soft target—Ripon Grammar School—and successfully triggered a ballot. The result is now history. Parents, but incidentally not the parents of children who attend the school, voted two-to-one in favour of retaining the grammar school. However, in the wake of the Ripon result, a group of anti-grammar school activists are already fundraising for a return to the fray.
I shall turn to the crux of my amendment. This power, as set out in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, allows those who are opposed to grammar schools to return in four years' time to canvass yet again for signatures in order to trigger another ballot. That can go on ad infinitum.
However, for the schools concerned, their staff, the parents, and, most significantly, for the children, this is a most unsettling, disruptive and debilitating process. Time, energy and money are expended in fending off those who hold a political grudge and have a philosophical objection to grammar schools.
I welcome the response to the Ripon Grammar School ballot result on Friday from Mr Blair, Mr Blunkett and certain of their colleagues. They wish to end hostilities against grammar schools. They have said that arguments about selection are now a past agenda and, instead, they wish to draw a line in the sand on this issue. I welcome, too, Mr Blunkett's comment that he is not "hunting grammar schools", but that he would rather concentrate on the issue of raising standards. We all say "Amen" to that.
The timing of this Bill is fortuitous and I hope that I can be forgiven for taking advantage of it. But this opportunity gives us all—including the Government—a chance to make a reality of the statements made over the weekend by the Secretary of State and his colleagues. The provision of education should, as far as possible, match the needs of all of our children. That means that there should be an extension of choice, a widening of diversity and the freeing of schools to offer education to young people with learning disabilities or those with particular talents and aptitudes for science, music, the arts or sport, and for those who are academically able. The issue should be to encourage more, rather than less, choice.
I hope that the noble Baroness will feel it unnecessary for me to press this amendment to a Division. However, if that is not to be the case, I hope that as many noble Lords as possible will support me
1468
in putting an end to such a disruptive, deeply damaging and relentless war of attrition by voting in favour of my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hattersley: My Lords, I am in the embarrassing position of making my third speech in this House, in the knowledge that it is practically identical to my second speech. When I last addressed noble Lords, I said that the system of parental ballots was, I feared, so prejudiced as to be ridiculous. I now amend that allegation to express my certainty that the system of parental ballots is so prejudiced as to be ridiculous and I hope, if noble Lords will allow, to substantiate that claim.
However, before I turn to that point, I should like to make one or two comments on the proposal of the noble Baroness and on the way in which she has made her case. First, if, as she and her party so often claim, she believes in parental choice, she should support the argument that I shall put forward this afternoon; namely, to provide for better and more representative ballots which genuinely enable the parents in an area to determine the kind of school system they want in their county or borough. That would be a genuine parental choice upon which we could all agree.
However, the noble Baroness who has moved this amendment never offers arguments in favour of selection which bear much relationship to the truth of the matter. She has said again this afternoon that she believes in selection because it provides increased opportunities for parental choice. However, everyone knows that selection is the antithesis of parental choice. Parents do not choose schools; schools choose pupils.
If the noble Baroness truly believes that selection provides parental choice, I urge her to visit Ripon and ask those parents whose children attend the local secondary modern school—known by another name, but none the less a secondary modern school—how much parental choice they think they have. Some 33 per cent of those parents have tried to exercise their parental choice by choosing to take their children outside the borough to Knaresborough Comprehensive School which, in terms of examination results, has performed better than the grammar school in Ripon. However, the notion that selection and parental choice go together is one of the great myths of this debate. I find it sad that that argument is brought forward every time this subject is debated, even though it is patently false as a matter of fact. It is not a question of ideology; it is a matter of fact.
Like the noble Baroness, I, too, wish to draw upon the morality of the Ripon ballot. However, unlike the noble Baroness, I should like to remind the House of exactly how the Ripon ballot was conducted. Parental ballots have an extraordinary quality that is not shared by any other kind of ballot in this country. A politician, in this case the Secretary of State, can decide what should be the eligible electorate. In this case, he decided that five primary schools within the borough of Ripon—covering almost one-third of the electorate—should be disenfranchised, whereas two private schools outside the borough of Ripon (the

1469
largest one is in Harrogate and it has not sent a child to a Ripon school for almost two years) should be enfranchised. It is a simple nonsense to conduct a parental ballot in a borough and to disqualify almost half the parents who have an interest in how the future of those schools should be determined.
My noble friend the Minister of State and I have discussed these matters constantly over the past 35 years. I know that she was a child when she began and that I was, even then, as the Secretary of State said on the radio the other day, ageing but much loved. That is a terrible accusation to make. Ageing I accept. As Gerard Manley Hopkins said, it is a fate we are heirs to. But "much loved" is a terrible thing to say of a politician with my reputation. However, that is an aside.
My noble friend the Minister of State and I have discussed these matters over the years. She, I know, shares my view that the form of education in any one area is a matter of concern to all the parents and all the pupils in that area. The idea that whether or not there are comprehensive schools in Ripon should only be a matter on which parents who have an association with a grammar school can vote is preposterous. A very large number of parents who wanted to send their children to comprehensive schools were prevented from doing so, prevented from voting for a comprehensive system they wanted.
I regard this as a tragedy in terms of the democratic reputation of the Government whom the Minister serves and whom I support. If I may be allowed to make a political point, I say to the Minister that if the Government whom I support continue to develop the reputation for rigging ballots they may pay a terrible price when an election comes along which they cannot fix before polling day. The Government need to demonstrate their integrity on this matter. Their integrity is not underlined or emphasised when the Secretary of State says that he is glad that the issue is now closed in Ripon and that he does not want to see an end to grammar schools. At least, that is what he said on Sunday. He may have been joking at the time. Of that we will not be sure for another five years. On Sunday he expressed his delight that he had drawn a line under these matters. I think that undermines the entire credibility of the Government in their pursuit of a coherent education policy.
Therefore, I say to the Minister of State that what she ought to do today—if I may speak to her in such didactic language—is to accept that under the clauses of the framework Bill it is possible for the Government to move an amendment to the order which says that when there is a parental ballot—as parental ballots there will be—that ballot will be available to all parents within the area where change must come about. The simple logic of that is overwhelming.
It is a simple logic which undermines another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who moved the amendment. The noble Baroness says that she endorses the belief of the Secretary of State that we ought to consider standards rather than structures. Everyone, apart from the Secretary of State and
1470
apparently the noble Baroness, knows that standards and structures cannot be distinguished. When I made a speech in the House a year ago the Minister of State was good enough to agree with the proposition that when we talk about how schools should be organised we are talking about organising in a way that produces the best overall results. Some Members of this House, and many of us in the country, know that the best way to produce the best overall results is through a nonselective system of secondary education.
Having asked for that amendment—with no lively' anticipation that my request will be granted—I want to say to the Secretary of State, through the Minister of State, that he could not have been at times over the weekend more explicit in saying that what the Government really wanted was for the whole argument on comprehensive education to go away. But I have to tell the Secretary of State—and on this at least the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch and I are agreed—that it is not going to go away. The campaigns will continue; not so much in Ripon, though an appeal against the way in which the ballot was conducted may come from that city. The campaign will go on in Trafford; it will go on in Sutton; it will go on in Birmingham; it will go on in Kent. The campaign will go on in those places because in each of those areas there are people who believe that comprehensive education is best for the children of the area. These are people whose attitude to education is based on judgment and principle.
I take the example of Kent where—I think literally and certainly virtually—every primary school head wants to see an end to the 11-plus. They say collectively that they are unable to conduct proper classes in junior and infant schools because the pressure is, "Don't teach the children, prepare them for the 11-plus". People who regard that as a negation of education will go on campaigning. The Secretary of State said that in Kent five schools are failing and he may take emergency action in the summer. A sixth one may be added to the list. There are more failing schools in Kent than in any other county in the country. Oh yes, it is true. Before the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, shakes her head, I urge her to look up questions in the House of Commons over the past fortnight. There are five failing schools in Kent, more than in any other county in the country. The failing secondary modern schools of Kent are the price that most of the pupils pay for the selective education that provides the minority of grammar schools. While that goes on some people are going to continue to campaign. And quite right, too. It is a matter of principle and not one of political preferment and political expediency.
Before I weary the House, I wish to mention one of my deepest political convictions. One of the tragedies of the ballot—and there are some tragedies—is that damage is done by implication to the reputation of the majority of overwhelmingly successful comprehensive schools in this country. That damage has been compounded by many of the conflicting statements made by the Secretary of State over the weekend. In

1471
most parts of the country the "comprehensive" argument is over. Comprehensive schools are doing well. They are succeeding. They are taken for granted.
In the village where I live in Derbyshire the man who does my garden came to me on the first day and said, "Remember, everyone in this village votes Conservative and that includes me." In that village the idea that there should be an argument about whether the children of prosperous families should do anything other than go to comprehensive school would be regarded as ridiculous because the comprehensive school in north Derbyshire meets all the needs of the children who have a variety of abilities, aptitudes and aspirations.
I hope that the Minister of State will say—and speak for the Government when she says it—that comprehensive schools in this country have been an overwhelming success. They have fuelled the explosion in further and higher education. The new undergraduates going to our new universities are not the product of the 164 remaining grammar schools. They are the product of the non-selective system that is working. Desperate damage has been done to that principle by the unnecessary argument that the issue surrounding the ballots has created.
I say in conclusion that I would have liked my party to have taken its courage in its hands and to have said, "We believe that comprehensive education is best and therefore it is obviously the system that we will produce throughout the country." There was a time when the Conservative Party did the mirror image of that, when the Conservative Party—with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I believe, exercising some authority in these matters—toured the country promising a grammar school in every borough. I think that is no longer the policy of the Conservative Party; it knows that in most boroughs and counties what the people want is non-selective secondary education. I regret very much that my party has not advocated that with the boldness that the subject justifies. So the ballots must go on. I wish that they could go on in a more equitable, just and rational way.
Some people have been exposing the inadequacies of the ballots as they are now presented. But they will go on and the argument for comprehensive education will go on because many of us think that it is right and necessary. I look forward to hearing my noble friend emphasise today that the Government accept that the comprehensive revolution in this country has been a great educational success. None of this somewhat peripheral argument surrounding it should be allowed to detract or deter us from that undoubted truth.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, over the past 30 years, the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, has been utterly consistent in his views on selection. I have heard him speak on this subject before in the other House and I have read his articles. He has been completely consistent. He believes totally, as he expressed very eloquently in the final few minutes of his speech, that the comprehensive system is the most effective system for our country.
1472
The noble Lord was a friend and disciple of Tony Crosland. He did not quite express it in the extreme and memorable way that Tony Crosland used, but none the less he shared that view. Therefore, it is a grave disappointment to him that his Front Bench no longer holds to that belief with the intensity that he holds to it. As a result, it has devised a system of making electoral colleges around the country to do its dirty work for it. The noble Lord used the word "principled". It would be principled if the Government said, "We no longer believe in selection and we will bring in legislation to do away with selection". But they have not said that. That would be the principled position, but the unprincipled position is to say, "Well, we will create various electoral colleges around the country and let them do the work for us. If one of those electoral colleges comes up with the end of a grammar school, it will not be our fault; it will be the fault of the electoral college. We can walk by on the other side. We can wash our hands". What principle is there in that?
In effect, the Labour Party has decided to turn its face against selection. Certainly, the Prime Minister has. He has made a selection for his own children to go to schools that are not immediately in the catchment area where he lived. I do not quarrel with that at all. That should be the right of every parent. Indeed, when I held responsibility for these matters, one of the thrusts of our policy was to increase parental choice by having a wider variety of schools. That is a choice which our Prime Minister has exercised. I do not criticise him. But what of the Secretary of State? At a Labour Party conference before the election, the present Secretary of State made the famous, celebrated comment, "There will be no further selection. Watch my lips". He qualified that or rather explained it—
Lord Hattersley: My Lords, I am sorry to rise to interrupt the noble Lord but he must get these words right. The Secretary of State did not say "no further selection". That is what the Secretary of State says he said when he talked about it on Sunday. What he said was "no selection". The distinction between "no further" and "no" is very significant indeed.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, the noble Lord is digging a bigger hole for the Government. I am willing to accept that amendment. Of course, "no selection", and the Secretary of State says that it was a joke. So statements at Labour Party conferences by shadow Ministers or by Ministers are now a joke. "We will cut taxation"—that is a joke: "We will cut waiting lists"—that is a joke; "We will have an ethical foreign policy"—that is a hilarious joke. What the Government have done is to turn the Labour Party conference into a joke jamboree.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, and to the Minister that the process in Ripon has been deeply damaging. For three months, parents have been set against parents. Is that what the Government want? Teachers have been set against teachers and pupils against pupils. For three months, the whole of the community has been divided over a doctrinal issue and has not been concentrating on improving the

1473
education of the children in Ripon. Why should they be subjected to that again? Why should the children and the parents in other areas where ballots will take place be subjected to this appalling procedure? That is why I very much support the amendment of my noble friend today.
The process is damaging to education. The two head teachers, in the grammar school and in the secondary modern, which I am glad has now become a technology college, have shaken hands. They said, "No more. We don't want to do it again". They have already established an exchange of classes, because some of the departments in the technology college are better than those in the grammar school. Therefore, some of the pupils from the grammar school will benefit from that and some of the pupils from the technology college will go to the grammar school for the more academic lessons which are provided there. That is how it should be. One does not want conflict; one wants co-operation. However, the Government have invented a system of conflict. I think it should be abandoned. It is very damaging indeed.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may turn to the Liberal Party. I hope that the Liberal Party will be voting for us today; and if not, I hope that the chief spokesman for the Liberal Party, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will be voting for us. The official view of the Liberal Party is against selection. But when it comes to Sutton, where the noble Lord holds sway, it has grammar schools. There the Liberal Party at a local level not only does not attack grammar schools, but funds them. It is not going to campaign against the grammar schools. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will be in our Lobby tonight, because when it comes to changing from his national policy, he clearly is not embarrassed by scruple or hindered by consistency. Clearly, he has struggled with his conscience and lost.
I hope that when noble Lords consider the matter today—I appeal more to those on the Cross Benches than anyone else—they will be able to support the amendment. The system that the Government have devised is shabby and deceitful. If they really believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, believes, that selection should end, they should come forward with measures to do it. I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley. I believe that grammar schools should remain. I believe in a certain element of selection, by aptitude and ability, in our education system.
I hope that that will survive and I hope that the 164 grammar schools will survive. I beg the Minister to realise the damage that this process is inflicting on the education system in these areas. The Government do not have the courage to do what some of their supporters would like. They should abandon this shabby policy.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has not for the first time put the Government, and particularly the noble Baroness the Minister, very much in her debt. My noble friend has given the noble Baroness the opportunity, which she really must in her heart have been seeking for a
1474
long time, to explain the utterances of her right honourable friends in another place—what the Prime Minister's position is and what the Secretary of State's position is.
For myself, I believe that grammar schools are a useful institution and one of great merit. For a reason which I do not understand, but to which my noble friend has just referred, the Government have proved a little squeamish about coming forward openly and strangling grammar schools and killing them off, which, as my noble friend said, a whole host of their supporters would probably like. They have not done so. They have instead developed a system of death by a thousand cuts and putting them under a more or less permanent sentence of execution. Every four years there is an opportunity for campaigners. The noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, is quite right in saying that there will always be campaigners. Some campaigns are campaigns of merit; others are rather deficient in that quality.
My noble friend has done us all a service in giving the Government an opportunity, of which they must make the most, to explain their position. If they are still animated by prejudice but are not prepared to confess it, they will get into a more and more shameful position. I very much hope that, if the noble Baroness cannot move this evening, she will tell your Lordships' House that this is the moment when she will go and tell her colleagues that she and they are drifting into an impossible position. They have to make their intentions clear and not leave the fate of grammar schools to this ridiculous and, if I may take my noble friend's word, appalling procedure which tortures everyone and satisfies no one.
5 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I shall begin by declaring an interest in that I am a board member of an organisation called Support Kent's Schools, which is a private company set up to campaign to retain the present system of variety and choice in secondary education in Kent and to improve and sustain standards everywhere in schools in the area. Incidentally, I should point out that our chairman is Mr Eric Hammond, who is a distinguished socialist and former trades union member.
For 23 years I represented a constituency in Kent in another place. Throughout that time, I found that there was very substantial support for the four grammar schools in my constituency. It did not come exclusively from those who had had personal experience of them, though, for the main part, it did. Similarly, I did not find that there was any general implication in that support that, somehow or other, the non- selective secondary schools were necessarily inferior. They very obviously were not, as was perfectly clear to me from my visits to them, any more than the children thought themselves failures. Unfortunately, some are told by their parents that they are and that seems to me to be a great disservice to them.

1475
Now we have had the outcome of the ballot in Ripon. It seems very much as though the parents there take the same view. I want to deal head on with what the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, said about there being no choice offered by the selective system. I find it impossible to understand that argument. No one is saying that all the schools must be selective, but, if you have a selective option, you have the choice of being considered by a selective school. You do not have a guarantee that you will be accepted—I see that the noble Lord finds that extraordinarily hilarious. That seems to me to be absolutely unanswerable. You have a choice of being considered by a selective school for admission, whereas if you live in a county where people share the views that the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, holds, you will have no choice at all: you will be told that you have the choice of going to the comprehensive, or to the comprehensive. Therefore, it seems to me to be beyond question that you have more choice if you have an option to go to a grammar school, if you happen to pass the selective criteria for that school.
If we were to have a ballot inflicted upon us in Kent, I guess—it would be presumptuous to put it any higher—that we would have a result that would reflect the one in Ripon, though probably more emphatically. Of course no one can tell, but I think that that would most likely be the case. The noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, has some experience of the feeling in Kent. Although I did not have the privilege of being there myself, I am told that the noble Lord attended a widely-advertised meeting that attracted about 47 people, not all of whom were supporters of his way of thinking. I understand that there are those on the noble Lord's side of the campaign who utter despairing comments that it is impossible to get people to demonstrate enthusiasm for it. I do not know whether or not that is true.
I turn now to the system of ballots and of petitions that trigger the ballot. I believe that the Government have now rightly assessed that public opinion is strongly averse to what is proposed in the Bill. Therefore, given that state of opinion, I believe, for the reasons that have already been given, that the system has now become oppressive, as well as costly and extremely divisive. I suggest to your Lordships that the time has come to take heed of what the Secretary of State said the other day; namely, that what is now necessary is to get on with the business of providing the higher standards of education for our children that are possible and practicable. That is the important thing. We must set aside this argument that has gone on for the past 25 years.
In Kent we happen to have something like one-fifth, although I am not sure whether it is a quarter, of the remaining grammar schools that survived the attentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, when she was Secretary of State and an ally and colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley. We survived then by the skin of our teeth, the general election intervened and we, therefore, have that number of grammar schools left. They are there
1476
because, on the whole—though not exclusively—the people in Kent want them. However, they do not want to see this argument going on and on.
I believe that the existence of this system—I take seriously what the noble Lord said about those who will continue to try to operate it—is deeply damaging. I suggest that what we need now is a long period of stability during which those who attend the schools and those who teach in them can settle down to their proper tasks. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I have been moved to do so by the several references that have been made to Kent. I am a parent in Kent with two daughters. One is in a Kent primary school and the other has just passed through a Kent primary school. I should like to concur with my noble friend. It is true: head masters and head mistresses of primary schools in Kent are often put under pressure from a minority of parents not to teach the broad curriculum that it intended but to coach for the Kent test. Indeed, one or two village primary schools have a reputation of so doing to such an extent that there is a willingness among a small minority of parents to ensure that their children get into particular schools.
I live on the Romney Marsh. The selective grammar school that my daughters could have gone to, had they so intended and been successful, is in Folkestone. That is 17 miles away. It may well be that the majority of people in Kent have a view about selective education, and the noble and learned Lord may be correct in what he says. However, if those who wish to see an end to the grammar school system—as I do—were successful in persuading what in Kent is a large number of people to qualify for a ballot, I had anticipated that I would have the democratic right to express a view. I shall not go as far as to say whether or not that view would result in the end of selection, but I do not see that as being divisive between me and my neighbours.
Similarly, I do not see the torture and, indeed, I doubt that those in Ripon saw the torture of which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, talked. What I see is rank opportunism by way of inserting the amendment into the Bill—an attempt, thereby, for prejudice to reestablish itself—not a selective system to be eradicated, if so required, by a democratic ballot.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, I have spoken enough on the subject in this House. However, I want to take a brief break from the insularity of this debate. I should like to point out that in the German state there has been a democratic choice. Only 9 per cent of schools are comprehensive. When East Germany joined West Germany it had a totally comprehensive system but, thereafter, 90 per cent of the east-German states—and this is the telling point—went over to the selective system of the west.
The noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, may belong to the world of dinosaurs and believe that the English state and society is so unique that it cannot live with the selective system, as exists over large parts of Western

1477
Europe. But even he must think about the choice that was given to East Germany. They had enjoyed the comprehensive system for 30 or so years, but when they had the chance to change they went selective; and they did so on a total ballot. We must not be insular about this. We must realise that the vaunted comprehensive system has produced some of the lowest results internationally of many countries.
We cannot boast, as the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, does, about a perfect education system. Yes, I am prejudiced: I came from a poor family and, like the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, the grammar school gave me great advantages. The great criticism of English education is that neither the Right nor the Left would provide proper alternatives to the grammar school, as they did in France and Germany. We must not keep ourselves in this insular debate. Indeed, Ripon has provided an example that grammar schools exist for those who benefit from a largely academic education, and a technological college will provide the rest. Let us not stop this happening. I beg noble Lords to think carefully about this.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, this debate is not about the future system of education in this country; it is about whether or not there should be ballots of parents on the existing grammar schools. However, the debate has slightly widened and I should like to make it absolutely clear that I support the comprehensive principle. I do not agree with what has been said about the comprehensive school not providing an opportunity for parents to choose. Within the good comprehensive school there is choice for parents to concentrate on different aspects of the syllabus.
I live in an area not far removed from Ripon with a good school, the Ilkley Grammar School. It is not a selective school; it is open to all the children in the area, but it continues to produce students with good academic ability and students with other abilities too. I believe that that proves that one does not need the selective system to give parents a choice.
It is a bit rich that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, should table this amendment on the balloting of parents. I remind your Lordships that it was the government of whom the noble Baroness was a member who first introduced the principle of balloting.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way, but does she agree that there is an important distinction here; namely, the measure was initiated by the parents and the governors of individual schools?
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, the balloting under the previous administration's system did not concern whether schools should opt out of being selective but whether they should opt out of being directly funded by a local authority and should be grant maintained. Those were to be annual ballots, if parents and governors so wished. We are now talking about a five-yearly ballot. Again, it concerns parental choice; that
1478
is, whether parents in an area wish their children to be subjected to the selective principle. I had sympathy with my noble friend Lord Hattersley when he said that not all parents in the area we are discussing were entitled to a vote under the system. If we are to have balloting, it should cover all parents.
However, I suggest to your Lordships that this is not the occasion for a debate of this kind. We are debating the Learning and Skills Bill which concerns the education and training of young people from the age of 16 onwards, whereas the amendment introduces an area of the education system which is not covered by the Bill. I have no objection to our having a full debate on the principle of comprehensive education or on the principle of balloting. However, as I say, I suggest that this is not the occasion to have this debate. Therefore I am strongly opposed to the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I hope that I may deal shortly with the point that the noble Baroness has just made. She has made the point that it is not appropriate or proper to seek to amend another statute through this amendment, in this case the School Standards and Framework Act. If the noble Baroness will attend for a moment, I shall try to deal objectively with her point. The Title of the Bill states that it is a Bill,
"to make other provision about education".
Amendments have already been tabled in Committee by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn to amend the Education Acts. It is understood that when these have been perfected in some form they will be presented to this House at Third Reading of this Bill. If that is the case, why should the noble Baroness object to amending another statute which is concerned with education through this amendment, when her own party proposes to do precisely the same thing as regards another statute which deals with education on Third Reading?
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I wish strongly to support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Blatch. She is quite right to introduce it for two reasons. Two events have taken place in the past few days: first, the result of the ballot at Ripon over the future of the grammar school there; and, secondly, the remarks of the Secretary of State over the weekend. The result of the ballot at Ripon proved conclusively that parents wished to retain the grammar school and were satisfied with the educational arrangements. I, too, am pleased that the other school is to become a college of technology as those colleges have already proved their educational worth. I have no doubt that that school will benefit from that measure.
I have no reason to believe that the remarks of the Secretary of State have not been reported correctly, as they have not been denied. It appears that he has now said that what he said in the run-up to the election was not true and was a joke and that he wishes to draw a line under the argument about grammar schools. That means that we are in a different situation. My noble

1479
friend is quite right to press the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to say what exactly the Government's position is. We need to remember that we are talking about pupils in school. Those at Ripon Grammar School are currently taking GCSE, A-level and other examinations. The teachers are teaching them; pupils' future lives are being determined. While that is going on there are arguments about whether there should be another ballot in five years' time. That is unsettling.
I do not believe that there is one Member of your Lordships' House who would wish to send his or her child to a school which was to be subjected to a ballot every five years to determine whether it would continue.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that the amendment would give rise to immense uncertainty in the education sector?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords, not if the statements by the Secretary of State are to be believed and he wishes to draw a line under this matter. That would mean that we would return to the status quo and we would stop arguing about these matters. If the Secretary of State was genuinely interested in children and in raising standards, he would put an end to these ballots. We all know that the staff in a school are the key to good education. If someone is employed in a school and thinks that there may be a ballot in five years' time which may result in him or her having to move or be out of a job, that person will consider whether to stay in that school or whether to move somewhere else. This process is unsettling for staff and for parents but, above all, it is unsettling for pupils in a school. I believe therefore that it is right to do what the Secretary of State has apparently suggested and to draw a line under the whole argument about grammar schools. Let us stick with the status quo. I support the important amendment of my noble friend Lady Blatch.
Lord Tope: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, begged the forgiveness of the House for introducing this amendment at an extraordinarily late stage in a Bill to which it does not relate at all. I noticed that the Minister shook her head as if she was in some doubt as to whether to forgive the noble Baroness. I, too, felt some doubt as to whether to forgive the noble Baroness. We had a late night last night discussing this Bill and I was not best pleased, when driving home in the early hours of the morning, to hear that we would discuss this issue today. However, having heard the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Hattersley, I now forgive the noble Baroness. But I am not sure whether the Minister will be equally forgiving for the same reason. If it was a repeat of his second speech, from my point of view it certainly bore repeating.
I agreed with virtually everything that the noble Lord said, except his comments about the Government getting a reputation for ballot rigging. That is not quite right. The Government are getting a reputation for ballot rigging and still getting the wrong
1480
result. That is the worst of both worlds. I think the noble Lord was perhaps being uncharacteristically kind to his Government.
However, he was right to put into context the fact that for the past 25 or 30 years the overwhelming majority of children in this country have been educated in comprehensive schools and that the overwhelming majority of parents have been very satisfied with those schools. In some cases they are perhaps more satisfied than they should be; nevertheless they are satisfied.
Standards have been rising and examination results have been getting better. It is as well to remember that because all the publicity has been and, I am sorry to say, continues to be about failing schools and failing teachers. That gives a wholly wrong impression of the education system in this country. None of us defends or wants failing schools, but we must remember that they are a small minority.
I was going to spare the House my experiences in the London Borough of Sutton but, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, has made personal reference to them—and as he bears some personal responsibility for those experiences—I shall spend a few moments on them, partly because they are illustrative of the history of education in this country over the past 15 years.
My party was elected to control in the London Borough of Sutton in 1986, a very significant year. If there was a single issue in that election—and I think that there was—it was our unequivocal statement that we would reorganise to get rid of the selective system in Sutton and introduce comprehensive education. We preferred to say that we were going to abolish the secondary modern schools, something I hear very little of from the Conservative Benches.
In the previous election the Conservatives had elected 47 councillors; at the 1986 election they returned with 21. At the previous election we had elected three councillors; we came back with 28. I felt that that was a clear endorsement not only of my party but of the principal issue on which the election was fought.
We went ahead with comprehensive reorganisation. In different schools around the borough. I chaired 16 meetings on our proposals. I can tell the House that the meetings in our four grammar schools were not wholly comfortable. I believe the noble Lord. Lord Hattersley, recently had a similar experience in Sutton and knows what I am talking about.
Then came the 1987 general election. During that election and immediately afterwards, the Secretary of State—the same noble Lord who attacked me earlier—made it clear that there was no way he would agree to a reorganisation which would get rid of four grammar schools and introduce comprehensive education. If there was such a reorganisation, the Government made it very clear that they would introduce grant-maintained status. Our four grammar schools were in the first wave of applications for grant-maintained status. They were, of course, given grant-maintained status—at which point, incidentally, we stopped funding them as a council. Of course we fund the

1481
grammar schools now. Does the noble Lord seriously expect that the local education authority would not fund good schools? I accept that they are good schools. Of course it does.
That is enough about Sutton. It is often said that there are now only 163 grammar schools in the country and that this is a minor issue. Certainly in many parts of the country it is a non-issue, but in areas such as Sutton where there are still grammar schools, it is a major issue. It is an issue not only for the 163 grammar schools but for the large numbers of other schools in those areas which are directly—and usually adversely—affected by the existence of a selective system.
Lord Baker of Dorking: Before the noble Lord leaves Sutton completely, perhaps I may correct his impression of the 1987 election. In no speech that I made in that election did I fetter my discretion as Secretary of State, should an application come before me, for the abolition of grammar schools. I was waiting for an application from the Borough of Sutton because it had Liberals in control and they were committed to abolishing grammar schools. They did not make that submission. That is the point. Nationally, the Liberal Democrat Party believes in the abolition of grammar schools, but when it has them in its boroughs it goes on funding them.
Lord Tope: My Lords, perhaps before any other noble Lord gets excited, I should make it clear that I have no intention of leaving Sutton. This is only a temporary phase today.
Let me make it clear that one of the most difficult decisions that our group in Sutton had to take after the election was whether or not to pursue our reorganisation proposals. Many of us felt very strongly that we would. I accept of course that the Secretary of State would not have been so foolish as to say anything that would have fettered his discretion. But do any of your Lordships believe that, in the context of 1987–88, the new Secretary of State for Education, the right honourable Kenneth Baker, would have approved a system which would abolish four grammar schools? I doubt whether any noble Lord, on any side of the House, believes that that would have happened.
So, as a new administration which had inherited years of neglect in our education system, we had to decide whether to concentrate on the things that we could achieve or to fight what was then a hopeless cause. If there should be any doubt about my personal commitment at that time, I should inform the House that my two sons passed the 11-plus in Sutton. Both of them went to our only comprehensive school—if there can be a comprehensive school in a selective system; it was as comprehensive as it could be—and last year my elder son graduated with a first-class honours degree. So I have no problems at all about where my commitment lies and where my party's commitment lies locally.
1482
Turning now to wider issues than Sutton, selection affects more schools than grammar schools; it affects all schools in the area of a selective system. More importantly, it affects all children in the area of a selective system.
Returning for a moment to Sutton—again only for illustrative purposes—last September in our borough, where we still have a selective system, only 14 per cent of the children from Sutton primary schools gained a place in one of the Sutton grammar schools. That is how bad it has now become. More than 50 per cent of the intake to our grammar schools now comes from outside the borough. I am not a petty nationalist or a petty Suttonist. It is a mark of the success of those schools. But it is also a mark of the effect that it has locally and how unfair and how divisive it is within the selective area.
The Government's record is shameful. I think we all recall the much-quoted phrase at the 1995 Labour Party conference, "Watch my lips". Many did watch his lips. I have not the slightest doubt that the intention at that time was to give the impression—whether or not it was meant then I do not know—that should a Labour government be elected we would see the end of selection. I have no doubt at all that that is what was intended at the time.
It is said that we have had to wait five years to learn that that was a joke. Those of us who spent many hours going through the School Standards and Framework Bill realised very quickly at that time that it was a joke. For a party that says it is still opposed to selection and committed to ending it, the ballot system it has introduced—with all the hoops and hurdles that those of us who want a fair ballot have to go through—is a very strange way of showing a commitment to abolishing selection. What has happened since has been shameful. Whichever way one would vote in such a ballot—assuming one was lucky enough to get a vote in such a ballot—it has been shameful. The Government do not come out of this with any credit at all.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that if I were to join him in the Division Lobby today—which I will not—it would not be because of any equivocal feelings about grammar schools on my part. No one who knows me locally thinks that I have any equivocal feelings on that issue. If I were to join him it would be because I share, for opposite reasons, the views expressed from the Conservative Benches about the ballot system. It is a dreadful system. At the time we argued that these decisions should properly be made by the democratically elected and accountable local education authority after full and proper consultation. That remains our position.
We shall not support the amendment. It is an attempt to turn the clock back to a bygone age. Now and in the future we should be paying attention to creating an education system which is not divisive and which prepares all of our people of all ages for a thorough learning-for-life education in the 21st century. We should not be harking back to the so-called golden days of the 1950s, which were golden only for a small percentage of our children.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there has already been a great deal of debate about the relative merits of comprehensive and selective forms of education and I am at a loss to know what more can be added on this occasion. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that the Government have explained their position on many occasions, although I am perfectly happy to do so again.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me for interrupting. I may be very slow indeed, but my difficulty is that the explanations have not always tallied with each other. That has led me to suppose that the noble Baroness might welcome an opportunity to clear up the confusion which is totally foreign to herself but is engendered by her colleagues elsewhere.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am happy to send the noble Lord a number of documents, including speeches made by my colleagues. Perhaps that would help him.
Let me begin by saying that this Government are committed to raising standards for every pupil in every school. I am not sure that that could be legitimately claimed by noble Lords on the Conservative Benches opposite for their government. I am afraid that it could not be claimed; there would be no validity to such a claim.
The amendment certainly does not address the task of raising standards in all our schools. As my noble friend Lady Lockwood said—
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I do not want to disturb the debate, but in answer to the idea that this side of the House did nothing about standards, will the noble Baroness explain why the Government maintained Christopher Woodhead, and Ofsted, which was a result of the policies of the previous government? Is that an example of not raising standards?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I endorse the work that is done by the Chief Inspector of Schools. That does not mean that Members of the Conservative Opposition can claim that they successfully raised standards—on the contrary, their policies did quite the reverse. Many young people—
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not going to give way again. I have given way twice already in the first three sentences of my reply. I must be allowed to make my arguments. It really is impossible if noble Lords opposite rise to interrupt, literally after every phrase. I should like to be able to make a speech and if, at the end, noble Lords want to put further questions, I shall of course be delighted to try to answer them.
1484
I want to pick out something that my noble friend Lady Lockwood said, as did the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Not only does the amendment not address the task of raising standards; it does not address the main purpose of the Bill—namely, to create a new infrastructure for raising standards and participation in post-16 learning and skills development.
Before this Government were elected, decisions on the future of grammar schools were in the hands of local authorities and Ministers in Whitehall. We had a manifesto commitment to place those decisions in the hands of local parents. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, knows very well, we delivered that manifesto commitment in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The legislation was, of course, passed by both Houses of Parliament. What the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, now seeks to do is to overturn the manifesto commitment which was fulfilled through the passing of that legislation.
The amendment is intended to repeal that legislation in spite of the manifesto commitment that led to it and, with it, the position that we established by which parents—not local authorities, not Ministers, not civil servants—would decide on the future admissions of grammar schools. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, suggested that the Government had been unprincipled. I refute that suggestion. This was a principled commitment to allow parents to decide the future of the structure of secondary education in those areas where grammar schools remain.
The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 also prevents any new selection by ability, except, of course, for sixth forms and for banding pupils to ensure intake across the ability range. In the case of grammar schools, the Act allows existing selection to be removed only where parents vote for it to change or the governors of a grammar school put forward such proposals. The Act also leaves decisions on partial selection to the adjudicator. We steered that legislation through Parliament precisely because, while we believe that further selection by ability would not enhance standards, it should be for parents locally, not LEAs or Ministers, to decide whether they wish to change the 11-plus. The Government continue to believe—this is true of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the Prime Minister and all other Members of the Government—that selection by ability does not enhance standards.
Acceptance of the amendment would mean that we were letting Ripon parents vote for all parents, which would be a very odd position to adopt. By analogy, it would be like the result of a by-election determining the governance of the country as a whole. Ripon parents have voted, as the legislation allows, on their local circumstances. Of course, we respect that vote—although I understand that my noble friend Lord Hattersley does not like it. The first ballot has taken place. Parents in Ripon have been able to express their view clearly. There were complaints during the ballot process that it was unfair, particularly as regards the composition of the electorate. But those complaints have been made by both sides, and indeed back in 1998

1485
when the School Standards and Framework Bill received its Second Reading in this House on 7th April, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, alleged:
"The survival of grammar schools would be at the mercy of a biased balloting system.—[Official Report, 7/4/98; col. 624.]
Finding myself between my noble friend Lord Hattersley—who I must say is ageing extremely well, and who is certainly much loved, always has been and always will be—puts me firmly in the centre, and in quite a reasonable position.
The claims made by the noble Baroness do not stand up to scrutiny. The electorate was composed of parents whose children attend the schools which most regularly send children to Ripon Grammar School. These are therefore the parents with the greatest interest in the future of the school.
Placing the future of selection by ability for the 164 remaining grammar schools in the hands of parents allows us to concentrate on our main agenda of raising standards in all 3,600 secondary schools. A number of rather over-the-top comments were made by noble Lords opposite when describing what has happened in Ripon. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Brett, who was right to point out that bandying around such terms as "torture" really is purple prose of the worst kind.
Perhaps I may describe some of the ways in which we are raising standards in our 3,600 secondary schools, and indeed across the system. I very much agree with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that we must put behind us some of the sterile arguments that we have heard in this debate from the Conservative Opposition.
We are at the beginning of a three-year period of significant growth in education spending. The proportion of national income spent on education will rise over the course of this Parliament; whereas over the course of the previous Parliament it fell. We are providing a real terms increase in spending of 16 per cent. These resources ensure that standards can be raised in all schools for all pupils. I want to underline again that we should be talking about all schools and all pupils, not just a tiny minority in the remaining 164 grammar schools.
We are tackling poor performance in primary schools so that firm foundations are laid for success in secondary education. We inherited a situation in which more than four in 10 of 11 year-olds fell below the standards set for their age in literacy and numeracy. That is the extent to which the previous government, in their 18 years in power, failed our children and young people. Thanks to the literacy hour and numeracy strategy—measures opposed by the Conservative Party—we are raising achievement in primary education, particularly in schools in the most disadvantaged areas. We are delivering on our commitments to ensure that all pupils can succeed.
We put in place new measures to improve the transition from primary to secondary education, including a successful programme of summer schools particularly designed to help young people in disadvantaged areas. The Secretary of State for
1486
Education and Employment has spelt out a radical new agenda for raising standards at key stage 3—measures that will ensure that pupils can succeed whatever their background, whatever school they attend.
I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that there can be great choice in the comprehensive system. Not all comprehensive schools are identical. We have a range of policies that promote diversity in schools. We are increasing the number of special schools that provide opportunities for children with a particular interest in the arts, languages, sports or technology to play to their strengths. Specialist schools do work. Their performance on average in 1999 examinations improved compared with other schools. Specialist schools are also popular. By September 2000, there will be specialist schools in 86 per cent of education authorities. My noble friend Lady Lockwood was right to point up the choice that exists in the comprehensive system. There will be even more choice in future. We are also encouraging setting, which takes account of the different abilities of different pupils in different subjects. We are working on a national strategy for improving the education of gifted and talented pupils. Our Excellence in Cities programme includes initiatives for able pupils as well as promoting new opportunities across the ability range for young people who in the past had far too few chances to realise their potential.
I will say more about the success of comprehensive schools. Schools that select pupils by high academic ability are bound to perform better than those which admit the full range of ability. However, the average performance of the top 24 per cent of pupils at maintained comprehensives is the same as that of grammar school pupils, based on the GCSE points score for 15 year-olds in 1997–98, the latest year for which data are available. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hattersley and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that many comprehensives are doing a truly excellent job.
As to the references to Kent made by Opposition speakers, I confirm that—as was said by my noble friend Lord Hattersley—Kent had the highest number of schools in the country with serious weaknesses. It had 11 schools requiring special measures—hardly a reputation of which to be proud.
The amendment is an attempt to reintroduce the Conservative policy of a grammar school in every town which that party failed to implement during 18 years in office and which has been disowned by both shadow Education Secretaries since the general election. Theresa May told the Times Educational Supplement as recently as 1st October 1999:
"I don't get the impression that in areas where there are no grammar schools there is a great groundswell of opinion in favour of introducing them".
Nor do we.
I cannot accept the amendment. Moreover, we shall seek to reverse it in another place if we lose the Division that I anticipate the noble Baroness is about to call. Nevertheless, I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, may I ask the Minister one question before she sits down? At the beginning, the Minister said that the last Conservative administration had failed our young people. She used that phrase again halfway through her speech. At the beginning she said there had been no progress. Halfway through she said that the last Conservative administration had failed our young people. How does the noble Baroness reconcile that allegation with what actually happened? When we came to office, some 30 per cent of 16 year-olds were staying on for higher and further education. When we left office, that figure had risen to 75 per cent.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we are on Report. Noble Lords are only supposed to speak once to an amendment. They can ask short questions of the Minister for elucidation but they should not make another speech.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Minister made a fixed accusation to my noble friend the former Secretary of State for Education and Science. When my noble friend tried to interject, the Minister said that he would have the opportunity at the end of the debate. It does not become the Government Chief Whip to reach for the rule book when my noble friend had almost come to the end of his point.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I am grateful for such support as I am getting. May I repeat my short question? The Minister said that the last Conservative government had failed our young people. If so, why during the last Conservative government did the number of 16 year-olds who stayed on increase from 30 per cent to 75 per cent? Why does the noble Baroness want to make a cheap political point that she knows is fundamentally wrong?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, many cheap political points have been made by Opposition Members during this debate. While I concede that the number of young people staying on at school increased, when we took office only some 45 per cent of 16 year-olds were attaining five good GCSEs at grades A to C. That is a measure of the previous government's failure.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, as the Government—who were elected by a huge majority—believe that selection does not help to raise standards, which is their manifest aim, I fail to understand why the policy decision to abolish grammar schools cannot be taken by the Government. Why should it be taken by parents?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thought I had made clear that it is the Government's principled view that for the few remaining grammars schools—164 out of a total of 3,800 secondary schools—it is right to consult parents, seek their views and allow them to ballot.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I personally resent the Minister's very cheap jibe about our intentions and policy objectives over the years to raise standards in education. The noble Baroness and I have known each other a long time. I would not say such a thing of the Minister. The noble Baroness has always been concerned about standards in education.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will hear me out, I like to think that my colleagues and I are also concerned about standards. Most of the debate between us is about the means to achieving ends. The noble Baroness states that. Yet her party accepts city technology colleges after opposing them when they were set up. It accepts specialist schools, having opposed them when they were set up. The party accepts testing and assessment, which it opposed when put in place. Funding by the Government as a percentage of GDP is less than when we were in office. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify what I said. Nothing I said was intended to mean that the noble Baroness's intentions were not to raise standards. I simply said that as regards outcomes I do not think that she was altogether successful.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, unless the noble Baroness interferes with the writing of Hansard, she referred to the party not being interested in raising standards. When the Minister says that about my party, she says it about me.
It is almost as though the Secretary of State was not around: that we all imagined what he said over the weekend. The Minister referred to a manifesto commitment. We are not overturning a manifesto commitment. The manifesto commitment was overturned by the Secretary of State himself over the weekend when he wished to draw a line in the sand: he wished to end hostilities against the grammar schools. There is only one way to do that: to take away the pernicious petitioning and balloting system.
Many, like me, will be angry and dismayed—but not surprised—by the Minister's response to the debate. Your Lordships will remember well the siren call of Mr Blair at the last election of, "Trust me. We shall be a government who will say what we mean and mean what we say"—that is, when they are not joking. This is a Government who, from the Prime Minister down, make choices for their own children—selection by interview, selection by examination. They send their children to independent schools, grammar schools and grant-maintained schools. We have no quarrel with that. They do what every good, discerning parent would want to do: make the best possible choice for their own children. But what hypocrisy—to make those choices for themselves but to deny the same choice to parents up and down the land. You do not improve the rest by destroying the best.

1489
If the Government support the monolithic nonselective system advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, let them honestly say so. If not, let them clarify what they support. The Minister came to the Dispatch Box to explain what has happened since Friday. But nothing that the noble Baroness said threw any light on the comments of her colleagues in another place.
In arguing whether or not be supported grammar schools, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, made it clear that the national party does not support them. I remember well that when the School Standards and Framework Bill was discussed the noble Lord said that if his party had been in power it would have had a one-line clause in the Bill abolishing all grammar schools. My noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking reminded noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches that some of their colleagues at local level were highly supportive of grammar schools—often overtly—in their local area. I wish that I could find the quote of the reply, but I remind noble Lords of the gist of it: "That is at local level. But our national policy is not to support grammar schools". Talk about facing two ways at the same time!
Lord Tope: My Lords, I want to get to a vote and have, therefore, hesitated to intervene. Perhaps I may suggest that the noble Baroness is not best placed to describe the policy of the Liberal Democrats, nationally or locally. It is not what I said. Nor is it our party's policy, nationally or locally. Nor did I say that I would introduce a one-line clause in the Bill which I shall introduce when I become Secretary of State for Education.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that I might embarrass the noble Lord by quoting from that discussion. I am well placed to talk about Liberal Democrats at local and national level. I worked with them for a very long time. Such was the state of play in Cambridgeshire when I was leader that we almost had to tape record our discussions with Liberal Democrats because of their saying one thing and doing another. On visiting a grammar school recently I was surprised when supporters of the grammar school said to me, "Please don't upset the Liberal. He's very supportive of our school but he doesn't really want it to be known too well at national level".
The petition and balloting arrangements represent a pernicious and relentless war of attrition on grammar schools—a war which was declared at an end over the weekend. And—surprise, surprise—the guns are manned once more. At the weekend, Mr Blunkett said that when he stated five years ago, "Watch my lips, there will be no selection either by interview or examination", it was a joke. To supporters of grammar schools—myself, noble colleagues, staff, parents and children—this is no joke. I commend the amendment.
5.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 138A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 166; Not-Contents, 161.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Higgins, L.

Ackner, L.

Holderness, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Home, E.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hooper, B.

Ampthill, L.

Howe, E.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Arran, E.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Attlee, E.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bell, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Biffen, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blackwell, L.

Jopling, L.

Blaker, L.

Kimball, L.

Blatch, B.

Kingsland, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Boardman, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Bowness, L.

Laird, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Lucas, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Luke, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Lyell, L.

Buscombe, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Butterworth, L.

McConnell, L.

Byford, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Caithness, E.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marsh, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Chalfont, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chilver, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monson, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Montrose, D.

Craig of Radley, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crathonie, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Northbourne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northbrook, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Northesk, E.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Onslow, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Dundee, E.

Palmer, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Peel, E.

Elles, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Erroll, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Feldman, L.

Plumb, L.

Ferrers, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fookes, B.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Prior, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Rawlings, B.

Geddes, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Reay, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rees, L.

Goschen, V.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rix, L.

Greenway, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hambro, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Hanham, B

Saatchi, L.

Hanningfield, L.

St, John of Fawsley, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hayhoe, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Seccombe, B.

1491

Selborne, E.

Thatcher, B.

Selsdon, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Sharples, B.

Tombs, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Vinson, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Vivian, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Waddington, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Wakeham, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Warnock, B.

Strange, B.

Weatherill, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wharton, B.

Swinfen, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Wilcox, B.

Tebbit, L.

Wolfson, L.

Tenby, V.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Alli, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Amos, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harrison, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Haskel, L.

Avebury, L.

Hattersley, L.

Bach, L.

Hayman, B.

Barker, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Barnett, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Blackstone, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Blease, L.

Hooson, L.

Borrie, L.

Howells of St, Davids, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Hoyle, L.

Brett, L

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brookman, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hylton, L.

Burlison, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L, (Lord Chancellor)

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Carter, L, [Teller]

Islwyn, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Jacobs, L.

Christopher, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Jay of Paddington, B, (Lord Privy Seal)

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Jeger, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Crawley, B.

Judd, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Laming, L.

David, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Levy, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Desai, L.

Lipsey, L.

Dholakia, L.

Lockwood, B.

Diamond, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dixon, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McCarthy, L.

Dubs, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Durham, Bp.

McIntosh of Haringey, L, [Teller]

Eatwell, L.

Elder, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Ezra, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Maddock, B.

Falkland, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Masscy of Darwen, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Methuen, L.

Filkin, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Gale, B.

Newby, L.

Geraint, L.

Nicol, B.

Gilbert, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Goodhart, L.

Orme, L.

Goudie, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Paul, L.

Grabiner, L.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Greengross, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hamwee, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Puttnam, L.

1492

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Razzall, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Rea, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rennard, L

Tomlinson, L.

Richard, L.

Tope, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Uddin, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Varley, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Russell, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Warner, L.

Sandberg, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Sawyer, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Whitaker, B.

Shepherd, L.

Whitty, L.

Simon, V.

Wilkins, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Winston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.7 p.m.
Schedule 7 [Inadequate Sixth Forms]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 73, leave out lines 3 to 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised the question in Committee as to whether the provisions which now form paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 amount to retrospective legislation. While we do not accept that the paragraph is technically retrospective, we have looked at it again in the light of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee.
While we are clear that we shall do nothing to suggest any lessening of our commitment to quality in post-16 education, we are equally clear that schools should have every reasonable opportunity to address problems and to raise the quality of their sixth-form provision to meet the required standard, and we recognise that this should be the case before the schedule comes into force, as after.
Therefore, we propose to remove the provision. The noble Baroness may be further reassured to know that the judgment that a sixth-form is inadequate will not be made in the reports of school inspections carried out before April 2001, which is when we expect to bring into effect the powers in Schedule 7.
I hope that this amendment meets the concerns of noble Lords. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to thank the Minister. I am delighted that he listened to what we said in Committee. It was wise to move in that

1493
direction because there was much concern among the colleges and providers of sixth-form education. I am delighted that the Government have made those changes.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 102 [Provision of services]:
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Gardner of Parkes): My Lords, I must tell the House that, if Amendment No. 140 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 141.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 45, line 5, leave out ("The Secretary of State may") and insert ("Having regard to his duties under sections 8. 9 and 10 of the Employment and Training, Act 1973 and sections 43, 44 and 45 of the Education Act 1997, the Secretary of State may also").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment relates to the Careers Service in its new guise, the Connexions service. In the debate in Committee, the Minister made it clear that the Careers Service as it currently exists will be subsumed within the new Connexions service. As the Minister also made clear, the new service is to be an ambitious, interdepartmental initiative aimed at providing a comprehensive, integrated service for 13 to 19 year-olds. It will build on the existing services for young people, including the Youth Service and the Careers Service, and also pull in other partners such as the LEAs, the health authorities, the Probation Service and the social services. It will build on and extend current services which are presently the statutory responsibility of the Secretary of State.
As regards the Careers Service, the Minister made it clear that Clause 102 is about additional powers. It does not destroy old duties. As yet, it is uncertain how the new Connexions service will work, but the Minister said that she wanted it to be evolutionary and to grow from bottom up. The Government are committed to resourcing the new Connexions service properly so that every 13 to 19 year-old, whatever his or her circumstances, has access to the help needed. The estimated cost is £500 million at a minimum. The Minister said that half of that would come from the current budget for the Careers Service, some of it from the current Youth Service and some, she hoped, from new money from the comprehensive spending review now being undertaken.
The prime aim of the new Connexions service is to help bring back the 160,000 drop-outs in the 16 to 19 year-old group who leave school with few or no qualifications and fail to find employment or to continue in any education or training. We on these Benches applaud that initiative. The aim is ultimately to provide a mentor for every 10 of those drop-outs. If that is achieved, eventually 16,000 people will be working as mentors.
What then of the Careers Service? It currently employs 7,000 people and the Youth Service about 3,000 people. Even if all those working in both services were employed in the new mentoring posts there would not be enough. Many of them are neither qualified by
1494
their current training nor wish to move to being mentors to those who currently drop out of education. The Minister assures us that that is fine because the current Careers Service will continue. The duty of the Secretary of State is to ensure that every child between 13 and 16 receives careers information advice and any necessary guidance. The Minister clearly stated:
"every young person will have access to a personal adviser. That access will be available according to his or her need. Not every young person will have a personal adviser, but every young person who needs such support will have access to one".—[Official Report, 17/2/00; col. 1380.]
In reply to further queries, the Minister categorically stated at col. 1384:
"there is no sense in which the Government intend to change the provision of important careers advice for pupils and students at school or in FE colleges. That service will continue … under the auspices of the Connexions service … All that Clause 99 [now Clause 102] does is to empower the Secretary of State to provide some additional services".
The "some additional services" is 16,000 personal mentors. The problem is that the sums do not add up. How can it fund the new mentoring service, which will cost close to £500 million, without new money now? If the Careers Service is to continue to do what it has been doing in providing careers advice, information and guidance to 90 per cent of those who remain within the school and college framework, there is little if anything to divert from its £250 million budget? The same applies to the Youth Service, which likewise has no slack in its funding. On the contrary, during the past few years most local authorities have cut the Youth Service to the absolute bone.
Yet the provision of these mainstream services to those who are not socially excluded is vitally important. Yesterday, we spoke of the waste involved in young people making bad choices and studying the wrong subject in their first year at university. But young people need guidance, even if they are not university material, in terms of careers. They need to be informed of the options that are open to them because the choices are so wide. They need guidance in making choices between the different offerings. Even if they are taking GCSEs, NVQs and A-levels, they need advice as to whether to stay on at school or to take work-based training. There are many choices.
The world has changed so radically that neither parents nor teachers are in a position to provide the necessary guidance. If anything, we need to improve the quality of careers guidance provided to mainstream students in further education colleges. That is the reason for tabling the amendment.
What the Minister said in Committee does not add up. She cannot have her cake and eat it. She cannot have her new Connexions service, with which we have much sympathy, and continue to provide the same quantity and quality of careers advice, information and guidance. Therefore, the amendment puts on the face of the Bill the duties of the Minister under, first, the Employment and Training Act 1973 and, secondly, under the Education Act 1997. That is why we have phrased the amendment in such a way.
We on these Benches applaud the new Connexions initiative to bring in the socially excluded. It is right to give them high priority. However, the scheme cannot be funded from existing resources, nor by switching existing services. The purpose of the amendment is to make it quite clear that the initiative is in addition to existing duties already incumbent on the Secretary of State, and not an alternative. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I have attached my name to the amendment and I want to speak to it and support what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said so ably. I thank the Minister for the letter that she wrote to me. It was helpful, but there are still anxieties and questions to be asked.
I repeat what the noble Baroness said: there is strong support for the intentions underlying the new Connexions service, but there is still concern about its impact on the careers education and guidance available to all young people between the ages of 13 and 19.
We do not see how the duty of the Secretary of State in Sections 8 to 10 of the 1973 Act is to be met. Government statements repeatedly refer to the fact that it is designed as a universal service. Most of the information available so far about the design of the service is addressed to the needs of young people who have dropped out of education, training or employment, or are at risk of so doing. That is evident in the two key features of the service: the emphasis on bringing together the variety of agencies which currently deal with the needs of young people at risk and the focus on the new profession of personal adviser who will provide continuity of help in relation to the full range of these problems.
The Government estimate that they will require between 15,000 and 20,000 personal advisers. Where are they to come from? There are currently just over 7,000 careers advisers in the whole of England, Scotland and Wales. How many will become personal advisers? How many will remain as careers advisers? All personal advisers will be offering careers awareness and guidance. My noble friend Lord Bach said that on 15th February. Given that most of them will have no previous experience of the work, how are they to develop the necessary competencies within the time available?
There are approximately 3½ million to 4 million young people between the ages of 13 and 19. The ratio of personal adviser to young person is likely to be about 1:200. Since some young people are to receive intense support, the support provided to others is likely to be limited. How are personal advisers to deliver the wide range of services expected of them?
There is particular confusion about the arrangements for schools. Here, the first point of advice is to be the learning mentor. The notion of learning mentors is based on the Excellence in Cities programme, where their role in practice is confined to working intensely with pupils at risk of dropping out.
1496
Has any evaluation been carried out of this work? Is it now the intention that all pupils will have learning mentors? How will they relate to careers programmes and to pastoral care structures within the schools?
The Minister has assured me that schools will continue to receive the impartial advice they need on careers matters through the Connexions service. If so, will the impartiality of their advice in relation to choice at 16 be assured, given that the learning mentors, and I think the personal advisers, will be appointed and managed by head teachers, who perhaps have an interest in 11 to 18 schools in students staying on with them; or will it continue to be offered by careers advisers based outside schools, as in the present Careers Service? If so, will there be enough?
The Careers Service provides up-to-date knowledge of the labour market, as well as impartial advice. It also offers careers library support, in-service training for teachers, work experience programmes, placement activities and other services. Is this to continue as the framework within which the Secretary of State carries out his duty under the 1973 Act to provide a careers service to students in schools and colleges? Can the Secretary of State provide assurance that the quality and extent of these services for all young people will be sustained?
In view of the growing complexity of options and pathways post-16 (and I congratulate the Government on these options), will the service include in-depth guidance for all who need it, including those who are achieving well in school but are unclear about their future plans? They may be bright and have five 0-levels or more but not have the maturity and knowledge to reach sensible decisions without outside guidance. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, made that point.
About finance, the budget for the new service is to comprise the existing Careers Service budget (some £236 million), an approximately similar amount from other sources and whatever additional funding is released following the year 2000 spending review. Given the multiple nature of the service, why is the only budget to be subsumed that of the Careers Service? Why is not the strategy to be adopted for the Careers Service that being adopted for the youth service, for the mainstream work to remain outside Connexions and to continue in tandem with the new service?
The current rearrangements offer a major opportunity for encouraging individuals to know where to access good quality guidance throughout life. There is a risk that instead there will be separate "brands" for Connexions and for information, advice and guidance for adults. How are Ministers proposing to ensure a seamless transition from one service to another, as suggested in the Connexions document, chapter 6.13?
There are fears that in the interval before the new learning and skills council is established existing services are being eroded. Most of the existing funding sources—notably TEC discretionary funds—and some European social funds are drying up. The risk is

1497
that by the time any new initiative comes on stream, services and their staff will have been disbanded. This will mean that much money and effort have to be expended on start-up activities. Transitional funding is urgently needed. Can the Minister comment on that?
There is strong evidence that many adults, including those who have not previously participated in learning, need access to in-depth guidance. I was interested in this context to read the Secretary of State's speech on 15th February on higher education. I quote:
"Universities and colleges must also be sure that the careers [service] they offer their students is relevant, up-to-date and effective. Graduates need good information on prospective careers, as well as knowledge and skills, to prosper in the labour market.
I make this point strongly because I believe that we need significant improvement in careers guidance in higher education, linked both to effective experience of the world of work and to guidance on choices for learning and progression, so that students make informed choices and build steadily towards learning outcomes that equip them with a broad base of skills and knowledge. Provision of careers guidance is currently patchy, and we need significant improvement. This will also assist in cutting the drop-out rate in the UK—albeit one that is very low by international standards".
That, I think, is quite important in the light of the advice that we seek for the Careers Service to give to all those in schools and, indeed, throughout further education, too. So I hope that what the Secretary of State says there he will carry out and be sure to carry out in the schools and colleges.
A final comment: it would seem from a consultation document that the department is circulating that the needs of 47 per cent of students under 16 and 63 per cent post-16 will be straightforward. Information will be through access to paper-based materials, user-friendly IT-based systems or through the opportunity for advice—for example, through drop-in centres—but will not include the guarantee of access to an NVQ level 4 specialist careers adviser. The service which was intended to be universal will not be. Eleven per cent will be those at risk who have truanted, and so on, certainly needing advice but not from a specialist careers adviser. So 41 per cent of the more gifted students will have the benefit of a qualified careers person—not quite what we have been led to believe.
It seems odd that this may become the policy for this country when the DfEE is currently out to tender for careers education and guidance for overseas European schools. There are 10; one in England. I quote from the detailed specification:
"All British pupils in the secondary years equivalent to Year 11 in [the] UK 'must be offered an individual interview with a careers adviser. If the pupil seeks another interview, or is referred again by the school. he/she may be seen more than once'.
All British pupils in the secondary years equivalent to Years 12 & 13 in [the] UK (ie. 17 & 18 year olds) 'who wish to be seen must be offered an individual interview, of between 20 to 45 minutes, with a careers adviser'.
'Careers advisers' must possess the Diploma in Careers Guidance or NVQ [level] IV in Guidance".
1498
I do think it is odd that this should be being made clear for the European schools but it is not clear to us yet that it is going to be the position in this country. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance when she replies.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, if the noble Baroness does not mind, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak now to Amendment No. 142. Because the arguments are so very similar, it may save her repeating herself.
At Committee stage I raised my concern that the Government proposed to fund Connexions services by robbing Peter to pay Paul. One cannot spend the same money twice. One cannot make the same person do two full-time jobs. One cannot take an existing group of services, tack on to them a host of new functions and then expect the job to be done properly without substantial additional resources.
The Government plan to provide 15 to 20 personal advisers. Where are they going to come from? Where are their salaries going to come from? In Committee, the Minister told us that 50 per cent of the resources would come from transferring 100 per cent of the existing Careers Service budget to the Connexions programme. But are the existing employees of the Careers Service presently occupied as personal advisers? I assume that many of them are not. Will personal advisers be transferred in from other jobs? If so, surely that will require additional funding. Where existing members of the Careers Service are transferred to become personal advisers, what will happen to the jobs they are doing at present?
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said,
"at present, neither the Careers Service, let alone the youth service. has slack in it if one wants to continue the current provision of services to schools, which we do".—[Official Report, 17/2/2000: col. 1384.]
The Institute of Careers Guidance's briefing states:
"Given the staff shortages in all of the agencies which will he part of the Connexions Service … [there is] a real danger that human resources will simply move from those agencies to Connexions in the hope of better pay and conditions, thus exacerbating the staffing problems of existing agencies".
The Government envisage that that part of the funding which does not come from the Careers Service and from an unspecified amount of new money to be put in by the Government is to come from other services currently provided for young people. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said,
"resources for the service will come from the pooling of existing central government resources and from those that are already devoted by local partners to youth support and guidance".—[Official Report, 17/2/2000; col. 1380.]
My particular concern is for the youth service, which is already overstretched. As your Lordships will know, England's youth service is extremely irregularly funded. The 1998 youth audit shows that a number of local authorities grossly underfund their youth services. The best local authority—if I may put it that way—spends £292 per head on 13 to 19 year-olds. The worst spends £18. I ask the Minister how that is going

1499
to work. Will the authority which spends £18 he asked to spend £9 on the Connexions service—in which case there will not be much of a Connexions service; will the Government subsidise that authority; or will they force it to spend more? Will the authority which spends £292 divert some of that money to the Connexions service? Will it receive the same subsidy as the local authority which spends only £.18?
The danger for the youth services is that existing youth workers will be diverted by the local authority from men coring to the new Connexions service as personal advisers. For example, there is an excellent watersports and canoeing service in Shadwell Basin in Tower Hamlets. There are several good youth workers there. If they are attracted away to become personal advisers, there will be no watersports service. Then, not only will the young people already using it be disadvantaged, but there will be no service to which the personal advisers can refer their clients—if I may put it that way—for ongoing support.
The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the new service—which is an admirable service—will not be funded or staffed at the expense of existing youth services. If that is what the Government intend, they have nothing to fear from my amendment. If not, then my amendment is badly needed.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I wish also to speak briefly to Amendment No. 142. I appreciate the Minister's assurances in Committee on the human resource implications of the Bill. However, I remain concerned that such a far-reaching and, in many ways, extremely welcome Bill, may unintentionally undermine good work already in place. It is extremely disappointing for young people, who have come to trust and value particular youth workers and the service which they offer, to lose those relationships. I am thinking particularly of young people who do not enjoy good relationships at home. I therefore warmly support my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister is probably having some trouble combining the responses to the two sets of amendments, but I should particularly like to speak to Amendment No. 142. It seems that the noble Baroness, Lady David, was expressing anxieties which must exist—but on which I have not been briefed—in the minds of the professionals who have such expertise in the different aspects of guidance of young people.
I am thinking in particular of the resources needed for youth work of the more informal kind, which has a great deal to do with how people become equipped to do jobs. Such work probably helps young people more than anything else. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to canoeing and that kind of activity. We all know the great variety of possible provision. I wonder whether the Government realise how quickly the cost of such provision is escalating. Young people's standards and expectations, if they are going to be attracted to informal youth work, are
1500
going up and up, partly due to television and partly due to the existing provision. Their expectations have risen in many ways. Informal youth work is growing more and more expensive. Unless the money is found to fund such work, it will die away and fizzle out because it will not be able to compete. That applies, of course, to voluntary youth organisations which deal with that age group, which must find higher and higher standards of provision if they are to attract young people.
The Government must face that problem. In their thinking about the new structures in the Bill, I hope that they realise that if they detract from expenditure on those provisions, they will lose them altogether. It may be that formal careers guidance improves but the stimulation of individual young people's motivation, their desire to do things properly and to meet high standards in everything they do will be lost. That is the value of the voluntary organisations and the informal provision which local authorities can produce. The Government must consider the matter seriously. That point is not always put to them by officials because it is less obvious. It is clearer to people who are involved in making the provision.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise to support almost everything that has been said during the course of this debate. It may come as some relief to the Minister that I shall not press my Amendment No. 143, which seeks to remove Clause 102, because I was using it as a mechanism to prompt the kind of debate that we have just had.
I do not know whether the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Sharp, or indeed, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, are the right amendments, but there is a real issue here. One of the issues is the degree to which expectations have risen. Throughout the service there is an expectation that something big will happen and that there will be a great deal more provision. There is definitely a dearth of what I call dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's; information about how the provisions will work on the ground. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, raised the uncertainty, distress and dismay of those operating at the local level right now under some difficulties. What will be their future? Will their job descriptions be changed? Will they be redeployed? Where does professional pride come into this? They jealously guard the way in which they carry out their duties, the way in which they have developed culturally over the years and the way in which they relate to young people. That will he prescribed in the future and it is difficult to know how that will work.
Where is the money coming from? As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has said several times, it cannot simply be a matter of taking the money that is presently being spent in all the different departments, bringing it together and redeploying it in a different way. Even that in itself would cost money. However, there is not enough there at present to fulfil the aspirational policy aims set out in the document, Connexions.

1501
There are also other questions. I refer, for example, to peer mentors, youth brokers, youth workers and counsellors. How will those functions be incorporated? Will that be done by one individual relating to a young person or by more than one? As the noble Baroness set out in an answer to me on the record and in a letter to me, this service is not simply for the excluded 7 per cent but for 100 per cent of young people. If 100 per cent of young people are to have access to a personal adviser, counsellor or mentor, whatever one might call it, the service will not be deliverable. It would be almost a sin to build up such expectations without necessarily being able to deliver them.
I refer to yesterday's debate when we discussed transport issues for people with disabilities. A provision had been made for those people but they were unable physically to get to and from the colleges and/or schools. The noble Baroness said at that time that the pilot schemes being conducted for educational maintenance allowances, which will give young people £40 per week, will be extended to consider the possibility of addressing the issue of transport for this particular group. Again, the money will either be spread even more thinly or yet more money will be required. It will be much more expensive to roll out that scheme nationally. It will be interesting to know from where that money will come.
I refer to a magazine entitled Ten, which is not one I read with too much joy. It is produced by an organisation involved in educational affairs. That organisation recently stated that financial support comes via eight different routes and eight different agencies on behalf of two departments. If that is what it is saying—and it is very much more a friend of the Government than I believe the Government would describe me—it too has considerable concern about confusion.
There is also confusion about whether the local skills councils will take over the educational welfare officers, educational psychologists and youth workers. It would be helpful to know who will have the responsibility for funding what is called the non-skills based education. That is another issue. Who will be responsible for running the personnel services for educational welfare officers, educational psychologists and youth workers? There is huge uncertainty.
At the same time, one must mention the warmth of reception for the aims of the Government, what they want to do and, I believe, are determined to do. However, there are many practical questions and this is the time, while the Bill proceeds through Parliament, when they should be answered.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before I begin perhaps I may clarify that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not now move Amendment No. 143?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is correct.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall try to respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord,
1502
Lord Northbourne, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, my noble friend Lady David and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
Amendment No. 140 relates to the role of careers provision in the light of the establishment of the new Connexions service. I am grateful for support from all sides of the House for the Government's intentions to set up the Connexions service so that we can do better than we have in the past in supporting all young people. I refer especially to those young people in danger of falling through the different nets which at present support them. I hope that we shall all be able to work together to achieve what is an ambitious but at the same time laudable aim.
My noble friend Lady David asked an enormous number of questions. I am sure she will understand if I cannot answer all of them. I shall, of course, write to her and deal with those that I do not have the opportunity to address today. As I am sure she will understand, I shall not go into issues such as careers guidance for higher education. That is another issue which has nothing to do with the Bill or the Connexions service. However, I entirely accept that it is important that students in higher education receive good careers guidance.
As noble Lords are no doubt aware, Amendment No. 140 would have no legal effect. But I welcome the opportunity to confirm what I perhaps did not make sufficiently clear in Committee. We are not repealing, and do not intend to repeal, any part of the Employment and Training Act 1973. The duties and powers of the Secretary of State to secure careers services will therefore remain intact. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, suggested that we might have great difficulty in putting the Connexions service in place and that it might not be viable for every young person to have access to a personal adviser. It is the case that every young person has access to a careers adviser at present. The Connexions service will incorporate the Careers Service and provide a broader-based service which will do the same; that is, provide access to every young person who wants and needs that kind of support.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I may press her further. Does that mean that there is no change? If every young person at present has access to advice and information, does that mean that the new policy is not extended in any way to 100 per cent of young people?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords; there is change. The Connexions service will provide a much broader range of advice and support than the existing Careers Service. That is the real difference. It will also focus rather more than the Careers Service has been able to on those disaffected young people who are in serious danger of dropping out completely and becoming lost, marginalised, unemployable and poorly educated. That is what the Connexions service is about.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for clarity over the question of mentors for those who have dropped out. Is the intention that the counselling service should be far more intensive? In Bridging the Gap, it was suggested that there should be a 10:1 mentoring service; that is, there would be 10 young people to every mentor. I believe that those two put together create doubts about whether the Government can achieve their aims.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. We want to provide a more intensive and continuous service, particularly for those with greatest need. There will be more differentiation than has been provided by the Careers Service in terms of the amount of support and help given to young people.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness and others are so pessimistic. I believe that we shall be able to achieve our intentions. Perhaps I may also say at this early stage that we are not trying to set up a brand new service on day one but to develop it over a three to four-year period, beginning with pilots to try out ways in which we can achieve that to greatest effect. I certainly believe that this is right when setting up a complex service of this sort.
Let me finally confirm that the Secretary of State's duties and powers to secure career services will remain and that the delivery of those services to 13–19 year-olds will be within the context of the wider range of support provided by the Connexions service. I want to be absolutely clear about that. However, that is not to say that in the future careers provision will be in any way subordinated. As I hope I have made clear, such provision will be an absolutely key element of the Connexions service. That is why it is vital for the new Connexions partnerships to build on the skills and experience which exist within Careers Service companies. It is also why we expect that the staff who currently work within those companies will form the core of the Connexions service, alongside staff from the youth service and other statutory, voluntary and community organisations.
Perhaps I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that we will be drawing on expertise from a wide variety of different professionals who are working at present. Of course we will need to recruit beyond the existing numbers in the Careers Service. As your Lordships may know, local learning partnerships will continue to be responsible, as now, for providing information, advice and guidance services for adults. Responsibility for funding and planning will lie with the learning and skills council. We are determined to improve the quality, coverage and scope of information, advice and guidance for adults. That is why we announced last year an initiative to develop services for adults at local level with a new investment of £54 million over three years.
In many instances, Connexions service providers will also be important partners in the local delivery of careers provision for adults, but so too will UfI, Learn Direct and a wide range of community and voluntary organisations. Below the age of 13 most pupils are
1504
rather too young to need detailed guidance about future jobs, so for this age group careers guidance is mainly delivered as part of the school curriculum through personal health and social education, or through careers education provided directly by schoolteachers. However, it will be open to head teachers to draw on the careers expertise of their Connexions learning mentors to support such activity.
A number of speakers, and certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about resources. As I said in Committee, we are committed to resourcing the Connexions service properly. Some of those resources will come from the pooling of existing central government resources and some from those already devoted by local partners to youth support and guidance. Of the existing resources that we expect agencies to contribute, about half will be made up of the existing Careers Service budget. That simply reflects the fact that careers provision for 13–19 year-olds will now be delivered as part of the new Connexions service.
As your Lordships will know, we are also considering what additional funding will be required as part of the Government's Year 2000 Spending Review and the rate at which the service is phased. It will of course depend in part on the resources available. Perhaps I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that we are certainly not going to take funds away from the youth service. We have made clear—I think I have said this in previous debates—that we will not be top-slicing the LEA youth service budget, or indeed removing any part of it. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the noble Earl as well. I should like to say at this point how much we value the work of the voluntary and the local authority youth service.
Can I also say something about the whole issue of whether careers provision for the majority will be at the expense of services for the disadvantaged? I think I have said previously that this new service is really going to be for all young people, whatever their circumstances and abilities. Careers provision will be a core function of the service. I want particularly to provide that reassurance to my noble friend. For many young people this will be the part of the service to which they really want access. It will apply to the great majority who are on track towards achieving appropriate learning goals, to doing well at school and going on to post-school education and who face rather few barriers to reaching their potential. Their main need basically is for career support, particularly at key stages, in order to inform their choices.
However, as I said, some young people need a great deal more support across a wider spectrum to help them keep on track and stay on in learning. They have just as great a need, if not a greater need, for careers support but they also need an awful lot of other help. That is what the Connexions service will provide.
I was also asked about Connexions service personal advisers, their recruitment and training. These advisers will include those working in a whole range of

1505
different occupations: new services, social services, teaching, youth justice and, as I made clear to my noble friend, Careers Service companies. Obviously I cannot say at this point what proportion of them will come from Careers Service companies because I do not know how many Careers Service staff will want to make the transition. I hope the vast majority will. This, again, is something that we need to evaluate and monitor as we go along. We believe that each of these groups will bring valuable skills to their new role. However, to ensure that the new profession has clear aims and objectives and a core set of skills, we are developing a job specification and a good, tough training programme to include the provision of high quality careers information, advice and guidance, as well as all the other functions that these personal advisers will be expected to carry out.
Of course, personal advisers will be expected to refer some young people to specialist advice where necessary. A young person with a serious drugs problem, for example, would need to be referred on to experts dealing with drug abuse among young people. As the Connexions document makes clear, in schools the Connexions personal adviser will be a learning mentor. My noble friend Lady David asked about this, building on the model that is being introduced in Excellence in Cities areas. This is being monitored and evaluated. The Connexions learning mentor will supplement the advice given by careers teachers in schools and, where appropriate, will refer young people for specialist advice and support, giving specialist careers advice and guidance.
The personal advisers will be appointed and managed by head teachers but their remit will be covered by protocols to ensure continuing objectivity of careers advice given in schools. I accept that objectivity is extremely important. My noble friend asked about transitional arrangements, including a phased introduction to the service, which will allow us to look at the different approaches to the involvement of existing Careers Service companies in the Connexions service. With support from the Careers Service National Association, the DfEE has established a group to provide guidance during the next few months on transitional issues facing Careers Service companies as the service develops.
Amendment No. 142 would place the Secretary of State under a duty to ensure that local authorities and LEAs continue to maintain and fund local youth services at current levels, including when he engages them in Connexions service provision. I understand and share the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to ensuring that the very valuable work undertaken by these services is not just maintained but increased, in particular those wider activities which help young people across the spectrum to develop confidence in their life skills. We are not just talking about their ability to achieve in a formal school or college context. I understand that the noble Lord is keen to ensure that this work is not in any way undermined or marginalised.
1506
As I said in Committee, I believe that the Connexions service could significantly improve the prospects for effective local youth services. We have said that we expect the youth service to be represented at all levels within the Connexions service. We have also said that we expect local three-year business plans to specify the contribution to be made by all the partners, including the statutory and voluntary youth services. Indeed, we have been explicit in saying that Connexions service delivery contracts will be awarded only if the national unit is satisfied that the partnerships have included in their plans the optimum mix of delivery through private, public and voluntary sector partners.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is concerned that the focus on Connexions activities could result in the further withdrawal of local authority funding. I believe that I have already covered that point, but I should like to emphasise that local authorities will retain all the powers they need to provide for local youth services. We intend that they should do so. I repeat that we have no intention of withdrawing funding or top-slicing that budget.
Along with several other speakers, the noble Lord was also concerned to ensure that demand for Connexions personal advisers does not result in a drain on key frontline youth service staff. Again, as I said in Committee, we have considered the potential problems as regards recruiting sufficient numbers of qualified staff for the Connexions service. That is one of the reasons why we have decided to phase in the service. I am being absolutely frank and straightforward when I tell the House that the rate of phasing will depend partly on the time that it takes to recruit enough qualified staff without causing an adverse impact on related services. We also intend to undertake an audit of the human resource implications for the very wide range of new and existing advice and support services provided by central and local government.
I hope that I have covered the main issues that have been raised in this area. If I have not done so, I shall be happy to write to noble Lords. However, having provided these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will feel able to withdraw her amendment and that other noble Lords will not wish to press their amendments.
7 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her lengthy and careful reply. I can see much more clearly what is being proposed here, and in particular I take on board the fact that the Connexions service will grow slowly and evolve over time as more resources are made available to it. It seems to me to be absolutely essential to secure a large slug of money from the comprehensive spending review that is due to take place. That is because, despite the reassurances of the Minister, the money put aside at present will not be sufficient properly to fund this service.
I was a little disturbed when the Minister indicated that there would be more differentiation within the existing Careers Service than is the case at the moment.

1507
The consultation document from which the noble Baroness, Lady David, quoted indicates that the age cohort will be divided into three groups, of which one would comprise 47 per cent. That group will receive only general advice and support based largely on access to paper-based material and IT systems. However, only a small proportion of that group will receive the careers interview and guidance that I believe many young people need. Forty-seven per cent amounts to almost half of these young people and I do not think that we can assume that they will not need rather more guidance than that which has been suggested.
I am left with a degree of uneasiness about how the service will develop. If we are to continue to provide careers guidance services, it will not be easy for the staff involved to transfer over into mentoring activities. There is very little slack in the system. It may be that a new "army" will have to be recruited to carry out the mentoring functions because I am not convinced that it will be easy to shift staff over into those activities.
It may be that we shall wish to return to this issue at Third Reading, but for the moment I shall withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 141 to 143 not moved.]
Clause 103 [Consultation and coordination]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 45, line 38, after ("consult.") insert—
("() a body providing services in pursuance of arrangements made or directions given under sections 8. 9 and 10 of the Employment and Training Act 1973,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment would seek to place Careers Service contractors delivering the Secretary of State's duty (under the 1973 Act, as amended) as bodies with whom the Secretary of State should consult under subsection (2) of Clause 103 rather than in subsection (1), as we attempted in Committee.
Subsection (1) specifies key statutory bodies. Amended subsection (2) will specify voluntary bodies and the provider of the Secretary of State's duty in respect of the Careers Service. The Secretary of State's duty is to provide a careers service to,
"assist persons undergoing relevant education to decide what employments … will be suitable for and available to them",
and to do so by "offering advice and guidance" to these young people. The Secretary of State's duties and powers under Sections 8 to 10 of the 1973 Act also relate to providing services to assist persons,
"to decide what training or education … [will] fit them for those employments".
Learning and skills are essential for individuals to progress from education and training into productive employment. The Secretary of State's vision is of an inclusive learning society, which also is marked out by thriving businesses, and hence a thriving economy. Critically, it is the Careers Service contractor—in fulfilling the Secretary of State's duty—who brings
1508
impartial information into schools and colleges to assist individuals to make choices informed by the needs of the labour market.
In planning Connexions services, it will be essential that the distinctive impartiality and labour market intelligence from the statutory Careers Service contractor is enabled to influence service provision. Unless this is the case, businesses will not be served by the new arrangements, nor will the economy—and the very inclusion that the Government rightly seek will be seriously impaired.
It is evident that Ministers seem intent upon the current "Careers Service contract" being subsumed in the Connexions contract. There is not the same clarity over how the funding of other elements of the Connexions strategy will be contractually captured and assured. Perhaps DfEE Ministers have failed to extract agreement from the DETR for certain elements of local authority funding to be routed to Connexions partnerships. If this is the case, it needs to be challenged.
Either Connexions partnerships bring together "partners with funding" who are required to work together or all of the funding for Connexions should come through a single contact. There is no evidence to justify a proposal to bring to an end existing Careers Service contracts.
Surely it would be better to continue to contract directly for the fulfilment of the Secretary of State's Careers Service duty, and to require those Careers Service contractors to work with local authorities and other Connexions partners. Local authorities and other partners would be "directed" by the Secretary of State to bring resources to the partnership table. Connexions partnerships would then be more "equal" and Connexions partnership proposals would be informed by the distinctive perspectives of the partners—including, by right, the distinctive Careers Service perspective. This is what the amendment to Clause 103 would secure. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, my name is also attached to this amendment and I should like to speak briefly to it. The amendment concerns consultation. Clause 103 provides for consultation, first, with a number of statutory bodies and, secondly, with non-statutory bodies. Those specifically mentioned are voluntary bodies providing services to young people.
It is extraordinary that the providers of careers advice, who will be subsumed within the Connexions service, are not listed among these consultees. As we know, in the past 10 years the Careers Service has been privatised. It is now supplied, largely, by private providers and private companies who are contracted to local authorities, schools and various other bodies to provide careers advice. Insofar as they are playing a crucial part within the new Connexions service, they surely need to be included as those who will be consulted about how the service will be set up.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the effect of this amendment would be to add Careers Service providers to the

1509
express list of those who must be consulted about Connexions service provision for a particular area. Noble Lords may recall that we debated a similar amendment in Committee. I said then that there were a number of bodies that could be listed on the face of the Bill as organisations that should be consulted about Connexions provision. However, Clause 103 has been drafted so that it provides for the full range of relevant bodies to be involved in the new service while maintaining simplicity and flexibility.
I can also reiterate the assurance that in planning Connexions provision in an area we will certainly expect those delivering a careers service to be key consultees. They will, after all, be key delivery partners. That includes Careers Service companies, schools, colleges, training providers and those responsible for adult information, advice and guidance. As it is said in the Connexions policy document, there will be close links between the Connexions service and the LSC at both local and national levels. At national level the head of the national Connexions service unit will be invited to attend meetings of the LSC and their young people's learning committee. At local level the Connexions partnership will be invited to attend meetings of the local learning and skills council as observers.
The local Connexions service will advise the LSC on gaps in provision and provide feedback on quality and on trends and reasons for non-participation in learning. The local LSC will provide labour market information, including skills shortages, to the local Connexions service. They will work together to improve information, advice and guidance about post-16 opportunities for young people and to ensure coherence across the pre-16 and post-16 divide.
Having heard what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I take it that he is not accepting my amendment. But, on the other hand, he has said that the Careers Service will be key consultees and he has given some other comfort. I shall have to be satisfied with that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 106 [Inspection]:
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No.146:
After Clause 111, insert the following new clause—
PROVISION OF CAREERS EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
(".—(1) The Education Act 1997 shall be amended as follows.
(2) For section 46 substitute—
"Extension or modification of provisions of ss. 43 to 45.
46.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations extend the scope of operation of section 43 and section 44 requiring—

(a) the governing bodies of institutions within the further education sector, and

1510

(b) the principals or other heads of such institutions, and

(c) the schools listed in section 43(2)(a) to (d), to secure that a programme of careers education is provided for any specified description of persons attending such institutions up to the age of 20.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for extending the scope of operation of section 43, 44 or 45 to primary schools or to any specified description of such schools, to secure that a programme of careers education is provided for any specified description of persons attending such institutions.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to propose Amendment No. 146 which stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Tope and the noble Baroness, Lady David. This amendment is similar to one that I moved at Committee stage which sought to extend careers education and guidance to the post-16 age group for whom, at present, there is no mandatory duty to provide such services.
In his reply at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said:
"We do not think that compulsion is either necessary or appropriate. It is better, in our view, that schools and colleges continue to develop their careers education programmes with the support of the new Connexions service".—[Official Report, 17/2/2000; col. 1402.]
In fact, Section 46 of the Education Act 1997 does provide the Secretary of State with the power to extend the requirement of careers education to primary schools, which is another issue covered by the amendment.
The probing amendment that we brought forward on the previous occasion gave the Secretary of State the opportunity to indicate that he might use this power. He is clearly unwilling to do so. Yet there are increasing numbers of young people participating in education post-16. For these young people going into the workplace, careers education and guidance can make a very real difference to their achievement and successful progression.
The changes to the post-16 curriculum mean that choices at 16 are no longer the single most important determinative of a career path. The decision at 16 remains critical, but that is the case also at 17. There are new and different choices to be made, with a changing approach to advanced studies and the growth of vocational qualifications. While loudly applauding these changes—the growth in the number of young people continuing in learning—there remain very serious problems to tackle, both in achievement and in successful progression from this area. Sometimes drop-out rates as high as 20 or 30 per cent are not uncommon in further education. It is worrying that that is creeping into higher education.
Vocational maturity does not go hand in hand with academic ability. Poor choices by far too many post-16 students result in misery for them and their families, a waste of public money and the failure to capitalise on the talents of young people as they progress into the labour market. The Bill does not go far enough in seeking to address these matters. That is why we have proposed this amendment.
We are somewhat surprised that Ministers have not learned the lesson from the previous administration. In 1992 to 1993, as the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill was progressing through Parliament, it was Labour MPs and Peers who argued that the Careers Service should be given the statutory right of entry to schools and that schools should be required by law to have a careers education programme and policy. The Conservative government said that this was not necessary, that the Careers Service and schools would work together in partnership and that compulsion was undesirable. What happened? By 1997 it was clear that in some schools, albeit a minority, some young people were not receiving access to the impartial help necessary for them to choose between all the options and routes post-16. Some careers advisers were being denied access to certain students. Colleges were expressing concern that post-16 school offerings were being biased by teachers and that the work-based route was not always being opened to students.
Ministers then changed the legislation: Sections 43 to 46 of the 1997 Act placed a duty on schools to provide access to careers advisers. It seems to me that we are now in danger of repeating history. I fear that that danger will be exacerbated if personal advisers and learning mentors replace rather than work in support of impartial careers advisers. Evidence shows that school-based advisers, unless their work is supplemented by impartial external careers advisers, do not always enable young people to choose between all the options and routes. This is why we feel it necessary that there should be this expansion post-16 into the college and further education section of the Careers Service and why we are putting forward this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, spoke to a similar amendment during Committee and indicated that she intended to return to the issue of careers education for young people. The proposal here is that the Secretary of State should be required to make careers education compulsory for specified groups of young people in schools and FE colleges up to their 20th birthday.
As was made clear during the debate in Committee, there is no question that careers education is important for young people, whether or not they are still in compulsory education. However, there is at present no mandatory subject for over 16s, other than, of course, religious education in school sixth forms, and we believe that it would be quite wrong to make formal careers education a requirement in this way.
Furthermore, in relation to the further education sector, we do not control the subjects offered by FE institutions and nor would we want to. Further education institutions should have as much autonomy in this and other respects as possible. The amendment would undermine that independence.
The provisions of the Employment and Training Act 1973, as amended, which gives the Secretary of State duties and powers in relation to careers services
1512
will, as I have already made clear, remain entirely intact. These provisions require careers services to be made available to, among others, precisely the groups with which this amendment is concerned: school pupils and FE students under the age of 20. Delivery of this provision will, as I have already made clear, be strengthened by the establishment of the Connexions service.
The amendment would also give the Secretary of State a specific power to secure careers education for primary school children. We believe that to be unnecessary because the existing Section 46 of the Education Act 1997 is already broad enough to allow this. The noble Baroness suggested that we have not learnt a lot of lessons from the previous administration. On the contrary, we have learnt a lot of lessons from the previous administration. It is a shame that they have not learnt some too.
We appreciate the concern which gives rise to this amendment but believe that efforts should be focused instead on ensuring that schools and colleges continue to develop their careers education programmes with the additional support of the new Connexions service. I am sorry that I cannot oblige the noble Baroness by agreeing to her amendment. Indeed, having heard my explanation, I would ask her to withdraw it.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. I am somewhat reassured by what he said. It is unfortunate that we cannot have a mandatory duty on the further education sector to provide careers education, but I understand the points that he has made. We may wish to return to this matter at Third Reading. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 147:
After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
GOVERNORS' LIABILITY
(". The governors of an institution incorporated under section 15 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 or under section 112 of this Act shall not incur any personal liability in respect of anything done reasonably and in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of their powers under section 18 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 as amended by this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved an identical amendment at Committee stage and I have nothing to add at this stage. However, I put down the amendment in the hope and expectation that the Minister will have something to add. I pointed out at Committee stage that there is widespread concern among college governors that they do not have the same protection from personal liability as do others; for instance, school governors. I pointed out that this concern was shared by the Neill committee, which had recommended to the Government as long ago as summer 1998 the need for legislation—"a pressing need for legislation" were the committee's words—to clarify the position.
In his very positive response the Minister expressed much sympathy with the amendment, though he suggested that it was a little flawed. He was aware of the issue of liability and was aware that it was of concern to many governors in the FE sector. He said:
"We are certainly prepared to reconsider this issue, how best we can give some reassurance to FE governors, and to come forward with our own proposals at a later stage".—[Official Report, 17/2/2000, col. 1413.]
We are nearly four weeks later; it is a later stage; I have put down the amendment simply to inquire from the Minister the product of his thought over the past three or four weeks and what the Government intend to do about this and when. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise simply to support absolutely everything that the noble Lord has said. This is a pressing issue. We are now so close to Third Reading that it would be helpful to have some information about progress on this point.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am astonished, quite astonished, that this amendment has been added to the Report stage. The noble Lord quoted exactly what I said—that we would come forward with our own proposals at a later stage. That is exactly what we will do. I did not say, "at a later stage in this House"; I said, "at a later stage". I am afraid that he will just have to be a little more patient.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, that is a fairly discourteous reply. It is a relatively simple issue. It is an issue that could be dealt with in this place. The noble Lord could have given exactly the same answer but in a more courteous tone. That was a very unfortunate tone of reply.
Lord Bach: My Lords, it was not meant in any way to be an unpleasant reply. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would not take it as that. He would know that by raising the amendment again he would get the short, quick and, I hope, fair response that he was given. On this issue he will almost certainly get what he wants. I just ask him to be a little more patient. I am just surprised that the amendment appeared on the Marshalled List at all.
Lord Tope: My Lords, perhaps it is my turn to say that I, too, am astonished. I moved the amendment in, I hope, a conciliatory spirit. I paid tribute to the Minister's recognition of the issue and intention to do something about it. I made clear that it was a probing amendment, to find out what progress the Government have made in their thinking over the past three or four weeks. I have clearly struck a raw note with the Minister. I am led to the conclusion that the Government have not thought about it at all over the past three or four weeks, that the noble Lord's briefing says nothing about it and that he has nothing to say about it.
I thought that it was an extremely unpleasant reply. I am not too worried about that. I have had far more unpleasant things than that said to me. That does not
1514
bother me in the least. But I am disappointed that after three or four weeks and at a later stage—I accept that the Minister was not specific about which later stage, but this is a later stage—the Minister has absolutely nothing to say and indeed gives me a reply which is far less sympathetic and understanding than the one he gave a month ago. I am inclined to press the amendment but I shall not do so. Is the Minister inviting me to press the amendment? I shall not do so, but I am surprised that the Minister feels quite as aggressive about this. I am very surprised and very disappointed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we may well continue to press him, given how vulnerable he clearly feels on the issue.
Lord Bach: At a later stage?
Lord Tope:At a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 113 [Assessments relating to learning difficulties]:
Baroness Darcy de Knayth Baroness Darcy de Knayth moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 51, line 11, after ("1996,") insert—
("() a person is identified by the school as someone who will qualify as a student with a learning difficulty or disability (or both) within the meaning of section 13(2), (3) and (4),").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment would ensure that all students with learning difficulties, and not only those with statements, are assessed in their last year at school. I shall be brief because it is the same amendment as the one I moved in Committee on 17th February. However, I shall bat on intrepidly. I said then that it was a probing amendment so I shall not rehearse the reasons why it is very important for some—I agree it will not be all—students without statements to be assessed if they are to flourish and not flounder when they move on to college or training.
In Committee, the Minister gave a useful explanation of how the existing Clause 113 will ensure that any education and training needs of statemented school-leavers are properly set out in all cases, but I did not feel that she had fully answered the point about non-statemented pupils. We agreed to pursue the matter later since it was 7.30, there were several more amendments to go and the sword of Damocles suspended over the Committee's head by the Chief Whip was timed to drop at 8 p.m. For all I know, it may be exactly the same situation again, but no one has told me.
The Minister wrote me a reassuring letter on 28th February so I have put down the amendment again in the hope that the Minister can give me that welcome reassurance on the record. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Baroness in her amendment. We are dealing with a problem caused by success. Surely the problem should be met in this spirit. It is easy to ensure that we

1515
carry on the good work. Let us put it in new business terms. Let us not waste our investment in these people. Let us ensure that they can go through and receive the appropriate education.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I entirely accept that this is a probing amendment; indeed, I am grateful for the opportunity that it presents to expand on what I said in Committee about the operation of Clause 113. I concentrated then on why we think that it is important to place a duty on the Secretary of State to arrange assessments of young people with statements of special educational needs who move into other forms of education and training at the end of their compulsory schooling.
I can now say more about the much larger proportion of pupils with special educational needs, but without statements, who move on in the same way. The noble Baroness seeks reassurance that proper attention will be paid to them and that they will be covered, where appropriate, by an assessment, while recognising that this will not by any means apply in all cases. I can give that assurance.
We all want to develop an approach which, by responding to their individual circumstances, is fair to all young people with learning difficulties. The Connexions service will need to focus most of its energies on young people who, for a variety of reasons, experience learning and other difficulties. It will know which young people have been identified as having special educational needs, at whichever of the five levels apply in schools. It will know the nature of those needs and will need to take such needs into account in advising the young people concerned about the best way of going on into FE or training. Moreover, its staff will need to be properly trained to carry out this task.
I would certainly expect some pupils without statements to be the subject of Clause 113 assessments on account of their individual circumstances. I would also expect some young people between the ages of 19 and 25 to be the subject of assessments under the extended power for the Secretary of State under Clause 113(3), which I undertook yesterday to bring forward on Third Reading.
It is a little too early to be more specific about numbers or process. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the position. However, I am clear that we shall need a consistent approach right across the country. In order to secure this, we shall want to issue guidance on how we expect the assessment arrangements actually to operate in practice. We shall also need help in developing that guidance from organisations representing people with learning disabilities. We shall look to the post-16 disability consortium, among other organisations, to provide us with that help and discuss the guidance fully with us.
Perhaps I may say here how much we appreciate the very constructive arrangements that we have had with organisations such as SKILL, with which I know then
1516
noble Baroness is very closely associated, and Mencap, with which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who is not now in his place, is closely involved. I hope that I have given the reassurances sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, in tabling this amendment. In the light of what I have said, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Yes, my Lords. I am not in the unfortunate position in which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, found himself earlier. I am delighted to be able to thank the Minister for her reply. She has entirely answered my questions. I am very glad that the noble Baroness acknowledges the fact that there will be many students who are not statemented and who will need assessment. I am also grateful for what she said yesterday about the position for 19 to 25 year-olds. I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness said that there will be guidance and that she will consult the consortium. Finally, I thank her very much for her nice remarks about SKILL. I should, perhaps, declare in parenthesis, as it were, that I am president of this organisation. I also thank her on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rix for what she said about Mencap. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 115 [Further education sector: designated institutions]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 52, line 25, after ("shall") insert (", subject to the preservation of the essential nature of the institution,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment need not detain us for very long. I raised this issue in Committee. The amendment addresses what are known as "designated institutions"—institutions such as the Ruskin College, the Working Men's College, Morley College and the WEA. In Committee, the Minister talked about the incorporation of governing bodies of voluntary aided sixth form colleges. I should have responded immediately then and said that it was not the reply that I had expected. This is one reason why I have raised the matter again on Report. The Minister now has an opportunity to make a response and, I hope, give us an explanation as to what will happen. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness has come back to the issue on Report. My only regret is that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, does not appear above that of the noble Baroness on the Marshalled List in respect of this amendment. I could then have made some reparation for the offence that I unwittingly caused him earlier. However, my remarks are aimed at both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord who sit on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
The noble Baroness indicated her concerns about the future of the adult colleges under the new arrangements. It is fair to say that we were somewhat at cross-purposes when we discussed this point in Committee. I am pleased that we have had the

1517
opportunity to address the matter properly now. The position of the adult colleges is in no way weakened under the new arrangements. They remain designated colleges and part of the further education sector. I hope that it will be helpful to the House and to the noble Baroness if I explain briefly a little of the background that is relevant to this issue.
When the further education sector was established, many LEA colleges were incorporated as further education corporations under Section 15 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. However, there is a separate group of colleges that were designated—in layman's terms, made eligible for funding by the FEFC—but which were not incorporated. This took place under Section 28 of that Act. Together, the two groups of FE corporations and designated colleges make up the further education sector.
The designated colleges can be subdivided into two subgroups—former voluntary aided sixth form colleges, with which most of Clause 115 deals, and the adult colleges, with which the noble Baroness is concerned. Under the current arrangements, the FEFC may fund only the governing bodies of institutions in the further and higher education sectors—the former consisting, as I have already explained, of the incorporated further education colleges and the designated colleges.
However, in contrast to those current arrangements, the learning and skills council will be able to fund any provider relevant to its functions. The present form of words in Section 28 of the 1992 Act is, therefore, redundant because there is no need to designate an institution in order for it to be eligible to receive funds from the LSC. Nevertheless, we must retain the concept of designation so that we are quite clear which institutions form part of the further education sector. In that sense, the change is entirely neutral towards the adult colleges. I hope that it is quite clear that the amendment in Clause 115 to Section 28 of the Further and Higher Education Act is a purely technical point. I am happy to give the noble Baroness an absolute assurance that the amendment to Section 28 of the 1992 Act does not in any way affect the basis of funding for the designated adult colleges.
However, I am sure that the noble Baroness is looking for something more positive; and, indeed, I can offer her that. There is a crucial second change in our new arrangements by which the designated adult colleges can only benefit. The noble Baroness will be aware that the duties of the FEFC in respect of adults extend only to Schedule 2 provision—that is, formal further education, often leading to national qualifications. The majority of the provision made by the adult colleges is of the non-Schedule 2 type; in other words, the FEFC has no obligations to fund this sort of provision and colleges have, to some extent, been relying on grace and favour. That will change. The duties of the LSC include all forms of further education, Schedule 2 and non-Schedule 2.
The Government have announced a very substantial additional investment in further education for adults for the next few years. They have also been
1518
conducting pilot schemes through the FEFC to expand non-Schedule 2 provision. This is the sort of area where the adult colleges have considerable expertise. There is clearly a challenge to them to build upon their existing work and to grasp the opportunities that will be open to them. That is, of course, a matter for them. But I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that they should in no way be fearful of the future. Rather, it offers the prospect of developing their mission and enhancing the distinctive contribution that they have made over many decades to adult education. I hope that the response and the reassurances that I have given will satisfy the noble Baroness and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which was both full and very welcome. There is no doubt whatever that those in this particular sector of further education will be delighted with the news that he has given me today. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 8 [Amendments]:
[Amendment No. 150 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 85, line 3, at end insert—
(". After section 109 of that Act insert
"New grammar schools.
109A.—(1) This section has effect for enabling the admission arrangements of a school to be revised so that the school has selective admission arrangements which—

(a) make provision for selection by ability; or

(b) make provision for one or more of the following, namely

(i) any selection by ability authorised by section 101;

(ii) any selection by aptitude authorised by section 102;

(iii) any selection by ability such as is mentioned in section 99(2)(c).

(2) Any such revision of the admission arrangements of a school shall be one of the alterations to a maintained school which are prescribed for the purposes of section 28.
(3) Regulations may provide that in their application to any proposals for any such revision of the admission arrangements of a school, any provision of section 28 or Schedule 6 shall have effect with such modifications as may be prescribed."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is self-explanatory. It seeks a permissive power—where this is appropriate or is requested—to set up new grammar schools. But the point I want to make—
Lord Hattersley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. A couple of hours ago the noble Baroness and her noble friends warned the House against the disruption caused by changing the status of a school every five years. How does she reconcile that with this amendment which offers the prospect of changing the status of a school every day of the week and every week of the year indefinitely?

1519
Or is it disruptive to change grammar schools into comprehensives, but not disruptive to change comprehensives into grammar schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my amendment is not disruptive at all. The power it seeks will be a bottom-up power from a local community, if it so wishes. I am talking about a power to create new schools, new sixth-form colleges, new colleges and new universities. I simply include grammar schools in that permissive power.
I wish to counter a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, earlier. For most of my life I have been concerned about standards in education. The remarks which the noble Baroness made earlier were deeply offensive. I believe that, as far as possible, the policy aim should be to meet the needs of all children: those with special educational needs; those with talents and aptitudes for the arts, the sciences and sport, for example, and those with good academic ability.
The amendment seeks to create new schools on the basis of selection. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, made an interesting point about selection. Where do the Labour Government stand on selection? Apparently there was to be no more selection under a Labour government. However, three years on, there is selection for ballet schools. I approached the department only this week to inquire whether it was possible to help a young person enter ballet school. I was told that the department only provides assisted places—I emphasise that point—in three ballet schools. The ballet school I was interested in was not covered. I refer in this connection to music schools, specialist schools, city technology colleges where there is banding and selection by interview, Church schools where there is selection by interview, and, in some Church schools, selection by ability, and, of course, grammar schools. Therefore there is much selection in any case. My amendment is a modest addition to that. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, this is the second amendment today on the subject of grammar schools. The arguments are the same and therefore I shall not go over them all again. The noble Baroness takes personally comments that I make about the performance of the previous government. I am constantly the butt of the noble Baroness's criticism but I take that to be part of the political debate; I do not take it personally. I certainly do not mean my remarks to be taken personally and I hope that in future the noble Baroness will not take them personally.
The amendment introduces new grammar schools. Therefore, it would allow schools to introduce selection by ability. I shall not go into all its technical defects but it appears to be intended to allow a grammar school, where parents have voted against selective admission arrangements, to reintroduce them and to allow schools to reintroduce selection where it has been removed. I believe that that would be disruptive, as my noble friend Lord Hattersley said.
1520
The amendment also makes absolute nonsense of existing legislation on the future of grammar schools and on partial selection. It is a further attempt to divert the debate from standards to selection. It shows yet again an intention to overthrow the legislation which delivered our commitments that where grammar schools exist, their future selective admissions will be decided by local parents and that there will be no new selection by ability. As I said earlier, that legislation followed a manifesto commitment and was passed by both Houses of Parliament.
Legislation allowing parents to decide the future of selective admission arrangements at grammar schools is based on our belief that further selection by ability would not enhance standards. As I said earlier, placing the future of selection by ability for the remaining grammar schools in the hands of parents allows us to concentrate on our main agenda of raising standards. I explained earlier at some length how we are doing that and I gave plenty of examples.
As I said of the earlier amendment, this amendment is simply an attempt by the Opposition to reintroduce their "grammar school in every town" policy which they singularly failed to implement during their 18 years in office and which has been disowned by both shadow Education Secretaries since the election. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I cannot accept the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I said that this was a permissive amendment. I believe that it is an important amendment; it is part of the tapestry of provision. I wonder when we shall hear a proper defence of a government whose members take advantage of selection, send their children to selective schools, allow their children to attend schools which have selection by interview or examination, and yet close the door on all other parents who would like to make the same choices. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
7.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 151) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Ferrers, E.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Fookes, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Blaker, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Blatch, B.

Glentoran, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Burnham, L, [Teller]

Henley, L, [Teller]

Byford, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kingsland, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Luke, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lyell, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Marlesford, L.

1521

Miller of Hendon, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Moynihan, L.

Seccombe, B.

Northbourne, L.

Selsdon, L.

Northbrook, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Northesk, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Tebbit, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Palmer, L.

Vinson, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Wharton, B.

Renton, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hayman, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Alli, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Amos, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hooson, L.

Avebury, L.

Howells of St, Davids, B.

Bach, L.

Hoyle, L.

Barker, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hylton, L.

Blease, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L, (Lord Chancellor)

Borrie, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Islwyn, L.

Brett, L.

Jacobs, L.

Brookman, L.

Jay of Paddington, B, (Lord Privy Seal)

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Burlison, L.

Jeger, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Judd, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Christopher, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Laird, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Levy, L.

Crawley, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Lipsey, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L, [Teller]

Dholakia, L.

Dixon, L.

MacKenzieof Culkein, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dubs, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Maddock, B.

Ezra, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Falkland, V.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Newby, L.

Filkin, L.

Nicol, B.

Gale, B.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Gilbert, L.

Orme, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Goodhart, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Goudie, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grabiner, L.

Puttnam, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Greengross, B.

Randall of St, Budeaux, L.

Hamwee, B.

Razzall, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rea, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rennard, L

Harris of Richmond, B.

Richard, L.

Harrison, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hattersley, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

1522

Russell, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Sandberg, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Sawyer, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Tope, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sewel, L.

Varley, L.

Sharman, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Warner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Simon, V.

Whitaker, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Whitty, L.

Simpson of Dunkeld, L.

Wilkins, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Winston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2000
7.55 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this order which deals with the Class 2, 3 and 4 national insurance contribution rates and thresholds. (I do not mind noble Lords making a noise when they leave, but when Members of the Opposition Front Bench are conferring it is difficult to communicate.) In previous years this order—the re-rating order—has been debated alongside the uprating of benefits. With the transfer of contribution policy to the Treasury, the annual re-rating order will now be dealt with separately.
The Taylor report considered the rates for employees, employers and the self-employed as part of its wide-ranging view of contributions. It recommended several changes and we have introduced many of these over the past two years as part of the simplification of contribution structure. For the employed, this includes removing around 1 million people on low earnings from paying contributions, with no loss of benefit entitlement. For the self-employed, this order will bring in some of the Taylor recommendations, helping those starting up businesses and providing positive work incentives.
First, the order deals with Class 2 contributions. If profits are below the level of the small earnings exception the self-employed may claim exemption from paying Class 2 contributions. We are setting the exception at £3,825. The order also sets the Class 2 contribution rate. For 2000 to 2001 this will be substantially reduced from £6.55 to £2 a week. This will benefit all the self-employed but particularly those with lower profits. As Class 2 contributions represent such good value for money, there may be a positive

1523
incentive for those on low earnings to choose not to exercise their right to exemption but to pay the contribution out of choice.
Secondly, the order sets the profit levels between which Class 4 contributions are paid. The lower limit at which contributions become due will match the income tax personal allowance of £4,385. At the other end of the scale, the upper profits limits will match the upper earnings limit for employees at £27,820. This simplifies the structure of contributions for the self-employed and makes the system easier to understand. By next year the thresholds for employees will match the limits for the self-employed.
The rate of contribution is set at 7 per cent on profits between these limits. This rate compares favourably with the rates for employees and employers. Given the benefits to which they have access, the contributions paid by the self-employed provide them with very good value for money.
Finally, the order deals with the weekly rate for voluntary contributions. These are increased by lop to £6.55, a standard re-rating in line with prices.
The review of the levels of thresholds and contribution rates is accompanied by the report on the effects of that review on the National Insurance Fund. I am pleased to say that this year, as last year, there is no expectation that the fund will need a Treasury grant. However, a prudent minimal provision is made in line with advice from the Government Actuary.
For the first time, there is a single re-rating order for both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Although Northern Ireland has a separate national insurance scheme from Great Britain, the two schemes are closely co-ordinated and maintain parity of contribution rates. Following the transfer of policy, the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 was amended last year to enable the re-rating order to include corresponding measures for Northern Ireland, including provision for a Treasury grant to the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [9th Report front the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
8 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the order. It brings the contribution regimes for the employed and self-employed into closer alignment. Differences in contributions, unless justified by differences in benefits, distort the employment market and lead people to seek self-employed rather than employed status, sometimes by artificial means. That was why we had the debates last year on the issue of personal service companies, many of which were set up to obtain the NIC advantages of self-employment.
The reduction in the Class 2 contribution is certainly welcome. Flat-rate contributions are a regressive tax. We should prefer to see the weekly £2 contribution go altogether. Employees with earnings above the lower
1524
earnings limit but below the level of the personal allowance will qualify for contributory benefits but will pay no national insurance contributions; whereas the self-employed who fall into that bracket will still pay £2 a week. I should like an explanation from the Minister as to why the self-employed in that bracket cannot qualify for benefits like employees without paying NICs.
The reduction in the start level of Class 4 contributions seems reasonable in the light of the reduction in weekly payments in Class 2 and brings the start point into line with Class 1 contributions. The increase in the Class 4 rate seems well justified. The rate will go up from 6 per cent to 7 per cent; but the Class 1 rate for employees, taking primary and secondary contributions together, is still at least two and a half times that even in the case of employees who have contracted out of SERPS.
Employers' contributions will, of course, continue to be payable above the upper earnings limit. The self-employed do not receive jobseeker's allowance, statutory sick pay or statutory maternity pay, but they do receive incapacity benefit, widows pensions and the basic state pension. Even at 7 per cent, the self-employed will get a very good deal indeed as compared with the employed.
We believe that the order improves the contributory structure and makes it more rational. We are therefore happy to support it.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, on a personal level—and in the interests of the noble Lord the Minister, whose burden of work in the House seems to grow like Topsy—I could wish that this re-rating order was still debated in tandem with the uprating of benefits. As such it would conceivably still fall within the remit of the Department of Social Security rather than the Treasury. I should stress that, in keeping with the example set by the noble Lord the Minister, I have no difficulty in acquiescing to the Chancellor's admiration for the work ethic. But this underscores a growing trend; namely, the way in which the Treasury's tentacles are insinuating themselves cross-departmentally. Dare I say that the commentators could usefully focus on the vice-presidential aspirations of No. 11 rather than the presidential ambitions of No. 10?
Turning to the substance of the order, we on these Benches have no quarrel with the changes to Class 2 contributions or with the provisions on exemptions. The changes to Class 4 contributions require a little more thought. On the surface, the alignment of the profits limits is a small step towards simplifying the tax regime. Equally, the increase in the rate from 6 per cent to 7 per cent could perhaps be justified on the basis of restoring any lost yield arising from the changes to Class 2 contributions, as recommended by the Taylor report. Fair enough. But what has piqued my interest are the statements in the Explanatory Notes that:
"Article 2 substantially reduces the Class 2 contributions payable by the self-employed. The effect of Article 4 will be to increase the Class 4 contributions payable by seine of the self-employed".

1525
I note, too, that the Paymaster General, in introducing the order in another place, stated that:
"Under the wider structural changes, more than one million employees on low earnings—of whom 770,000 are women—will pay no national insurance, and approximately 16 million people will pay less national insurance".
These are, of course, statements of fact. But they obscure some important issues.
First, the corollary is equally true. Many of the self-employed will be required to pay more in terms of their contributions. I therefore ask the Minister: how many and how much? I have in mind an annual total of £240 million. There is also the issue of the regulatory burden. In this context, I can do no better than cite the words of William Davis in yesterday's Evening Standard:
"Business has repeatedly asked [the Chancellor] to simplify the tax system. It is a task that so far has appeared to be beyond him".
I admit that that judgment may be a little harsh in the narrow remit of the order before us tonight. But, as William Davis goes on to say,
"The Government says that it wants to create an 'enterprise culture'. It is a laudable objective, but Ministers should try to understand that most entrepreneurs simply want them to get out of the way".
That leads to my second point; namely, that in substance and effect the order is redistribution by any other name. So be it. But it seems strange that this ambition from a former age should be targeted at a group of people—namely, the self-employed who have demonstrably shown the get-up-and-go to make a success of their business, and who could be defined as those who are the most entrepreneurial within the economy. That seems to be at odds with the general thrust of the Chancellor's remarks about the knowledge-based economy.
Those criticisms apart, we accept the order.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the enthusiastic support of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the acceptance of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. I make that distinction.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart has a valid point: when one starts to collect £2 a week on a statutory basis, the cost of collection will inevitably be rather high as compared to the returns. I can only acknowledge that fact. It is a relatively expensive thing to do. But the reason for keeping some figure is that Class 2 contributions secure entitlement to benefit, as Steve Webb recognised in the Commons. Those with lower profits can pay Class 2 national insurance contributions and protect their entitlement, but abolishing Class 2 altogether would prevent this. The low rate means that there is not the same entry charge as previously, which was such an anomaly. If we replace Class 2 with a single Class 4 charge without addressing the entitlement to benefit issue, we should be depriving the self-employed of benefit rights. Even the Taylor report recognised that to abolish the Class 2 charge would mean inventing a new benefit entitlement test or a minimum Class 4 payment for contributory benefits. It is for that reason that we have
1526
decided that, despite the relatively high cost of collection, it would not be possible to abolish Class 2 altogether.
The noble Earl also accused me of redistribution. I do not know whether it is an accusation or a plaudit, and I do not know whether I am allowed to accept the accusation or the plaudit. But I certainly do not deny that these changes to national insurance contributions are significantly redistributive. They make many poorer people significantly better off, and they do so at the expense to some extent of the better-off. If anyone wants to criticise me for that, I accept the criticism with some pleasure.
The noble Earl went on to say that this is in some way discrimination against the self-employed. The self-employed under-pay about £3 million for their benefits compared to Class I contributors. They get a lot for their contributions. They get the same benefits as employed and employers for a significantly lower figure.
The noble Earl asked also, "How many and how much?" Around 16 million people will pay less in national insurance contributions because of the structural changes. Introducing the primary threshold will reduce contributions by about £0.9 billion in 2001 and £1.8 billion in 2001–2002. That is how many and how much. It is well worth doing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Forestry Commissioners) Order 2000
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order is designed to correct a technical point that has arisen on the funding of forestry in England and Wales. The background lies in the devolution legislation for forestry. The forestry commissioners have been designated a cross-border public authority and will continue to exercise their functions throughout Great Britain. However, since forestry is devolved, the commissioners are now subject to separate direction by Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In making the necessary legislation to implement the settlement, we unwittingly created difficulties in respect of finances for England and Wales.
In June last year, Parliament agreed an order adapting the functions of cross-border public authorities. Among other things, the Scotland Act 1998 (Cross Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions etc) Order 1999 amended certain functions relevant to the forestry commissioners to ensure that, for their activities as regards Scotland, they were accountable to Scottish Ministers and

1527
therefore to the Scottish Parliament while remaining accountable to this Parliament for their activities as regards England.
The 1999 order also abolished the forestry fund, which had been made redundant by more modern accounting legislation. In doing so, it replicated those funding and accounting arrangements for public bodies whereby receipts are paid into the Consolidated Fund. In other words, the funding provision was for a gross regime. That was an oversight running counter to the agreed intention that the commission should continue to be net funded. Provision therefore needs to be made for net funding.
In Scotland, that will be done in 1999–2000 by reference to the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Finance) Order 1999 and thereafter under each year's Budget Act. That is reflected in Article 3 of the present order and in the new subsection (10) of Section 41 of the Forestry Act 1967 as inserted by paragraph 5(5) of the schedule to the present order. For England and Wales, the net funding regime is set out in the present order.
The key provision is paragraph 5(5) which introduces to the Forestry Act 1967 a new subsection (6) of Section 41 allowing commissioners to retain timber and other receipts for the purposes of defraying forestry expenditure. New subsection (8) of Section 41 allows Ministers, with the approval of the Treasury, to direct that some or all of those receipts should go direct to the Consolidated Fund. While it is our intention to continue at present with a net regime, the latter subsection would allow for the possibility at a later stage of funding on a gross basis.
The devolution settlement on forestry provided for the commissioners' activities as regards England, Scotland and Wales to be funded respectively by Westminster, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly—with provision for some activities to be funded on a Great Britain-wide basis by Westminster. In most areas, it is clear how expenditure should be allocated between the different sources of funding. In areas where it is less clear, the order provides a mechanism for forestry Ministers to reach agreement on the appropriate split. I expect the split to be set out in a forestry concordat. We hope to be able to publish soon the text of that concordat, which we shall of course make available to the House.
The principal changes in this order are to the Forestry Act 1967. There are, however, a number of other Acts under which commissioners have powers. The order therefore makes consequential changes to those Acts.
The order, which has been approved by the Scottish Parliament, will allow us to put right an anomaly in the devolution legislation and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her clear explanation of a complicated issue. When I heard the words from her
1528
lips that the Government had "unwittingly created difficulties", I chortled inwardly—maybe even outwardly. A number of us expressed concern about the division of the Forestry Commission, which many of us believe has an important role in the countryside—increasingly so, given the problems in agriculture.
I look forward to the concordat that is to be published soon. The commission will be a difficult operation to split. Timber often moves across borders, being produced in one country and used in another—one of the severe difficulties we have. The noble Baroness may be able to confirm that the Government have set their face against further conifer planting in England. We hope that plants in England that require conifers will still be able to produce their products and provide employment. If my understanding of government policy in England is correct, in next to no time the industries requiring conifer timber will become more and more dependent on Scottish production. Scotland also has industries using conifers. I hope that that will not be a problem in future, arising from the convergent policies of the Forestry Commission—forced on it by the Westminster Government and the Scottish Executive, albeit that the latter are pursuing a much wiser policy.
I am not entirely sure what the Government are doing in Wales. While the Forestry Commission is to be responsible to the Welsh Assembly, there is not much mention of the English-Welsh split in the order. Perhaps I am missing something.
Have there been any difficulties to date, apart from that highlighted in the order, as a consequence of splitting the Forestry Commission between the three component parts of the United Kingdom? The proposed subsection (10)(a) of Section 41 of the 1967 Act states:
"Subject to any provision made by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament for the disposal of or accounting for sums received, there shall be paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund".
and so on. I have no problem with that. It largely replicates a measure that already exists. But what is envisaged by giving the Scottish Parliament the power to do it any other way? What other way would there be? Is there some intention that it might go like that? Or are those the words in the principal Act under which the Forestry Commission operated before devolution?
In general, anything that can help the Forestry Commission to operate effectively and efficiently in its role as an industry and as a grant-giving body is to be welcomed.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the order and have no particular points to make. We look forward to the detail of the concordat but we are happy with what is a technical measure in this case.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, this is one of the rare occasions when I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—particularly in respect of his remarks about conifers in

1529
England. I invite the Minister, when she has time, to visit Thetford Chase on the Suffolk-Norfolk border, or upland areas in the hills and mountains of England and Wales, which are only capable of growing species such as lodgepole pine because they are the only ones that will grow and yield a return. The reason is that those are very exposed areas.
The order provides that the Minister may direct that money from timber sales shall be paid not for forestry purposes but directly into the Consolidated Fund. Does that mean that the Treasury has identified a new source of earnings? Can the Minister confirm or deny that the Treasury has set a figure on the amount of cash that it expects to receive each year from Forest Enterprise in England, Wales and Scotland? Will the Minister tell your Lordships whether such financial targets or expectations have the effect of making Forest Enterprise a weak seller of large volumes of roundwood, notably small softwood thinnings?
Here I declare a direct financial interest as the owner of a small woodland in Somerset, containing Norway spruce. My approved plan requires annual thinnings of spruce. In the past two years I have been unable to sell such standing crops at remunerative prices, contrary to what used to be possible. I have corresponded on the matter with the director of Forest Enterprise. I was assured that the nation's forests are managed on the best cultural principles and that thinnings are carried out to avoid wind-blow and to maximise the total return from the crop. I do not doubt that that is the general theory. However, in deciding an acceptable price for forest output, what consideration is given to the impact of a given price level on private forest owners, none of whom can compete with the Forestry Commission in size or volumes available? What thought is given to the strength of the pound, which allows industrial users of timber to buy from abroad at very favourable prices?
It is common knowledge that the Baltic states, and perhaps Russia also, are very short of foreign currency. Their understandable reaction is to cut their forests and export as much as they possibly can. I therefore ask: is it not the duty of the Forestry Commission to reduce its production when it knows that imports are flooding into this country? Will Forest Enterprise reconsider its sales and price policies and consistently act as a responsible market leader, considering the needs of all UK forest producers?
I gave notice to the Minister that I should raise these points and I shall be grateful, therefore, for an answer tonight.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall do my best to answer the questions raised by noble Lords. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that he does not need to invite me to Thetford Chase. I was walking there on Sunday, and enjoyed it very much. I do so as often as I can, when I can get away from here.
1530
I appreciate his point about conifers. We have not set our face against conifer planting. We have said that we would not expect to see any forests that were entirely conifer, but some broad-leaved trees in every forest. Conifers are clearly important for revenue earning in rural areas, as the noble Lord suggested.
I deal, first, with the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I am grateful to him for having given notice of them. He raised the wider issue of the strength of sterling, and the impact that that has on many of our industries, and in particular imports. The order will not in any way resolve all the sector's financial difficulties. We are considering separately how to respond to the serious fall in timber prices. The order will tidy up a loose end making it clear that income generated by the Forestry Commission can be reinvested in the delivery of public benefits in the forests of England and Wales.
The noble Lord asked whether the order allows transfers to the Consolidated Fund. Yes, it will. Paragraph 5(8) of the schedule provides for such transfers if Ministers so direct, and similar provisions will be made for the Scottish Consolidated Fund, about which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked.
As regards there being too much pressure by the Treasury to generate funds, we believe that it is right that the Forestry Commission should be charged with ensuring that taxpayers receive a good return on their investment in public forests. It is also charged with delivering other benefits, such as encouraging wildlife and providing recreation for the public. We believe that it has the balance right; and, perhaps more importantly, independent auditors have just certified all the Forestry Commission's forests as complying with the highest standards of sustainable management. That feeds into the thinning issue, to which the noble Lord referred. It is standard silva cultural practice, designed not only to benefit from the important small roundwood market such as paper but also to ensure good quality mature trees in years to come. It is entirely proper that Forest Enterprise should continue with this practice. Indeed, it would be failing in its duty if it did not. I reiterate what the noble Lord was told. All our forests are certified as sustainably managed. That gives them a marketing advantage although, of course, that advantage takes place currently in the context of an international market which is in some ways disadvantaged.
Those were the main issues raised. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked whether payments into the Scottish Consolidated Fund mirrored provisions in the Forestry Act. With the noble Lord's agreement, I prefer to write to him on that point.
On the basis of those answers, and with thanks for its general welcome, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Milk Development Council (Amendment) Order 2000
8.26 p.m.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the main purpose of the draft order is to permit the Milk Development Council, a non-departmental public body whose activities are wholly funded by a statutory levy on all milk sold by dairy farmers, to engage in the generic promotion of milk; that is, the marketing of milk to a wide audience without reference to its origin or brand.
Specifically the draft order does three things: it provides for the widening of the MDC's statutory remit to include generic promotion; it increases the maximum rate of statutory levy by 0.03p per litre to raise funds to carry this out: and it clarifies that the maximum rate of levy is exclusive of value added tax. The levy itself is subject to VAT but most levy payers are VAT registered and, therefore, able to reclaim it. It is the intention that these changes will apply to England, Scotland and Wales. The MDC does not operate in Northern Ireland, where different arrangements apply.
Approval has been sought from, and been given by, the European Commission to the proposal, for the raising of funds in this way is considered to be a state aid. The EC approval will also require the Milk Development Council to tender the campaign in accordance with the EC public procurement rules.
The amendment would allow the MDC to approach Ministers for an increase in the actual levy, currently 0.04p per litre, within the new maximum to raise funds for an advertising campaign. The dairy processing companies have voluntarily agreed to match dairy farmers' contributions pound for pound. Latest estimates are that a total of £6 million will be raised per annum for an initial 18-month campaign, after which its success will be reviewed. Research commissioned by the MDC and National Farmers' Union has already indicated that a spend of this order should have an impact in the market-place. Ministers welcomed the proposal, which was supported by all parts of the dairy industry, to extend the remit of the Milk Development Council.
We recognise—indeed we were talking about it earlier today—that the dairy sector has suffered significant falls in income resulting from a drop in the price it receives for its milk at the farm gate. That is an unfortunate consequence of the strength of currency and other factors. Therefore, the additional cost of generic promotion will impose a burden on them. It is important to repeat that we are doing this at the
1532
request of representatives of the sector. In order to be convinced about our decision, a poll of all producers was carried out last autumn to seek their views. Across Great Britain a clear majority—over 75 per cent—of those who cast a vote were in favour of the proposal.
To conclude, the draft amending order is an important piece of legislation that has the support of all sides of the industry. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committed.—(Baroness Hayman.)
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for putting forward the order tonight. The statements in the order are very positive. I am sure that dairy farmers will be glad to hear of the move to promote their milk industry. Moreover, from their point of view, they know the cost to them and how they will pay it. This will be in the form of a levy of 0.03p per litre, together with the existing 0.04p that they already pay to the MDC.
While welcoming this statement, there are a couple of questions I should like to ask the Minister. I understood from what she said—and indeed was well aware of it—that the processors said that they will match the 0.03p levy on a simultaneous payment system. However, the fact remains that the farmers have to pay by statute, whereas there is no legal compulsion upon the processors.
The Regulatory Impact Assessment of 31st January in paragraph 7 states:
"So far as the campaign itself is concerned, should evaluation demonstrate that it is not meeting its objective, the MDC would reconsider the campaign. If it was discontinued producer's contributions would be adjusted accordingly. Similar action would he taken if the processors' contribution was withheld for any reason".
The RIA came out at the end of January. Have all the processors—because there are so many now compared to the number in the past—given a complete undertaking to fulfil their part? If the Minister has any further details perhaps she could enlarge on that section because it is obviously fairly important. The matching funds have in principle been pledged from these processors and the agreement is subject to detailed arrangements being made with the dairy processing industry. I am happy with that.
We are told that this levy is for a 12-month period. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. I understand that it will come into effect as of 1st April. In practice, the monies will not come forward until June—I may be wrong—because it has to come from the farmers, go to the processors and then to the MDC itself. Can the Minister say when she expects this advertising campaign to start; whether it will be before June, or July.
At a time when all aspects of farming are under pressure—and we had a debate here last Wednesday and questions again today—the dairy industry cannot

1533
afford the proposed scheme to fail. Currently, there is a trade deficit in milk which for this country, with its superb grazing and highly successful breeding, seems ridiculous. It has been made even worse by the way the Irish Government were allowed extra milk quotas when they are already self-sufficient, which will enable them to export even more of their milk with impunity.
We on this side welcome the national generic campaign which has the merit of encouraging the public, especially young people to adopt the milk-drinking habit at a young age through the school milk scheme.
In assuring the Government of our support in principle for this initiative, I was reminded, on looking back at some papers—although he is no longer in his place—of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who at last year's Royal Show, when speaking in support of the European Protected Food Names Scheme, said:
"Collaborative groups can afford to devote resources to finding and developing markets".
I feel his words could well apply to the proposed designs to improve the sales of British milk and British products. Anything that helps the industry is indeed welcome.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the order and are aware that since 1994, when the Milk Marketing Broad ceased, the lack of any generic promotion has led to a considerable drop, year on year, in the consumption of milk in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned children drinking milk. I think this order will apply to all ages. I hope the promotion will enable young children, both pre-school and at school, to be re-weaned—if you like—off fizzy drinks and back on to milk, and indeed for people of our Lordships' ages and older, to be encouraged to be drinking Ovaltine and cocoa instead of a whisky at night. In saying that, I mean no disrespect to my Scottish colleagues. Luckily my noble friend Lady Linklater has left, otherwise I am sure she would be defending the whisky industry.
Perhaps I may ask a couple of questions of the Minister. I should like to know what proposals there are to evaluate the effectiveness of the scheme, perhaps after 12 months of its life. Also what measures will be used to evaluate its effectiveness. Although I appreciate it is a generic scheme, which does not apply especially to British milk, the last section says:
"for better acquainting the public in the United Kingdom with the goods and services supplied by the industry".
We often hear about the contribution of farmers to the maintenance of the countryside; does the phrase "services supplied" cover the way in which the countryside is looked after by dairy farmers. It is a connection that we have often made in your Lordships' House about the contribution of farmers not only in producing the food that we consume, but also in wider countryside management issues. I wondered whether that phrase included those.
1534
I should like to conclude by warmly welcoming this order. We feel it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the processors will support it because we have understood that one of the problems for the dairy industry has been processors and supermarkets exploiting their position in relation to driving down the price of milk. Their support for this scheme would be seen as a step in the other direction in terms of giving the farmers the support they deserve.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for welcoming the order. If I could start with the last point. This is a welcomed collaborative effort. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, pointed out, there is not a statutory duty on the processors. That means that we are more grateful that they are committed and believe that all the major processors are going to contribute. Their contribution, as I understand it, will be around the level of £3 million for the initial 18-month period. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked when the campaign was likely to start. Assuming that the legislation goes through on the timetable that we are implementing, the levy will be due from April, but it may be collected later. I understand that the MDC hopes to start the campaign by the end of May/ beginning of June. That is a matter for them in terms of the exact timing. That is the plan.
The campaign will be directed at young children, and in ways which appeal to them, as well as to older consumers. Whether it will specifically target those who are currently drinking Scotch whisky I cannot guarantee. Nor am I sure that it would be the most effective form of marketing. Perhaps a drop of whisky in the milk would be the answer.
It is right that we should evaluate progress with all the funding partners on such projects. A formal review will be undertaken at the 18-month stage against preset objectives. It will be carried out by an expert committee appointed by the MDC. If the campaign is not having the desired effect—and we hope that it will be successful—we shall then have the option of refocusing it or, if it is seen as being ineffective, of discontinuing it.
As has been pointed out, the dairy industry is under extreme pressure in this area. It has chosen to spend this money in this way because while companies are able to promote branded goods, some dairy products—primarily liquid drinking milk—do not lend themselves easily to brand promotion. That is why a generic campaign equally supported by producers and manufacturers can be of benefit.
In Great Britain, the consumption of liquid milk is falling by 1 per cent year on year. There is competition from soft drinks and changes in lifestyle have contributed to a fall in the amount of milk being consumed in the home. That has implications for our children's health and for physical development. We are currently discussing within the EU the future of the school milk subsidy scheme.
As the levy is viewed as a state aid, we cannot permit it to be spent on promoting the Britishness of our milk. However, it is a fact that the majority of liquid milk produced in this country is consumed here. The

1535
perishability and volume of the fresh product does not lend itself well to export or import. We believe that it will be effective and useful for dairy farmers here. More importantly, they believe that, too.
As regards the services supplied, the answer is "not directly". However, the MDC undertakes R&D work in this area and it is using the existing 0.04p of the levy in that and in other areas.
1536
I hope that I have answered the questions which were raised and that the House will support what we believe to be an important measure for the dairy industry.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Electronic Communications Bill
Tuesday, 14th March 2000.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard.
The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will then resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Register of approved providers]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("as he considers appropriate").
The noble Baroness said: I thank the Minister and his department for meeting me to discuss the Bill to consider in particular the government amendments which we shall be debating today. Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 are probing amendments designed to highlight the importance that we place upon the provision of a voluntary register of approved providers of cryptography support services, and the consultative procedures which we believe should be put in place to ensure that the register is effective as a workable accreditation scheme.
As with all aspects of this Bill, we are conscious of the fact that we are dealing with a continually evolving technology and it is therefore almost impossible to be sure here and now of covering all the possibilities which might arise in the medium to long term. This Bill reflects, albeit with a light touch—thank goodness, and thanks to the Conservative Party—a global watershed that is already changing all our lives and our thinking. That is why we must think on a global scale now, even if it is unrealistic to settle upon the right way to express this in law in this Bill. We believe that it is
CWH 2
imperative that the Government turn to and consult with those businesses, bodies and persons interested in, and with the practical expertise in electronic communications, to assist them in guiding us forward.
With reference to Amendment No. 1 in particular, we firmly believe that it should not be a matter for the Secretary of State to define the limits of transparency of his own responsibilities. As it stands there need not be a proper consultative and inspection process, as the inspection and consultative procedures need not be defined. This situation is not, unfortunately, unique to this Bill. For example, the increasing power of the executive now mooted in the Financial Services Bill goes against both principles of natural justice, customs of common law and the advice of some of the most senior and respected members of the United Kingdom financial services industry. It is up to Parliament to hold Ministers to account and to define the proper standards of transparency to which Ministers should answer. We believe our amendment responds to that need.
With reference to Amendment No. 2, the Bill as it stands puts no obligation upon the Secretary of State to consult with the electronic communications industry, its representatives or the broader public. We have experienced through the passage of this Bill to date fundamental changes to its content; changes that have fortunately been agreed because the Government listened to business and those with practical expertise and experience, as well as to the Conservative Party, since its original draft.
The electronic communications industry has shown itself willing to support this process in terms of making available considerable expertise and financial resources. We have little doubt that a continuation of this consultative process would be welcomed. Most of the regulatory structures set up by the last Conservative government put consumer and industry consultation measures in place and there is no doubt that we have all benefited from this now seasoned partnership approach. I say "seasoned" as many of us are rather weary of hearing this Government talk about being in partnership with business as though this were a new concept. It is only new for new Labour.
Amendment No. 3 is designed to emphasise the need to ensure that the legislation and regime is developed and revised consistently in accordance with worldwide developments. We believe that the law must follow the markets and not vice versa. This Government have a high standard to live up to in this regard, given the range of nations which have adopted the free-market principles championed by the last Conservative administration.
The last government also established some of the core management and quality standards which have won international recognition in world markets; for example, competence-based management standards such as those championed by the Management Charter Initiative have been recognised as world class. The OECD has used several United Kingdom standards as part of the basis for its own best practice for global management which have been adopted by thousands of world-wide businesses.
The Government are introducing legislation into a fast-changing environment that is moving much more quickly than the thinking behind that legislation. A range of new electronic communications technologies will drive a pace of ever more rapid change. Therefore, we believe it is incumbent upon the Government to continually review the legislation in recognition of the pace of change. Furthermore, Amendment No. 4 simply amplifies the importance of accountability which should, we believe, be demonstrated by the delivery of an annual report.
The credibility of any regulatory scheme depends upon the degree of respect that it has among the major practitioners and consumers in that industry. A key factor underpinning the ability of the regulator to gain such respect is its knowledge of the key trends affecting industry development. By introducing the most effective and wide-ranging consultative structures and processes, the regulator will gain more respect. All the privatised industries possess such structures and they are used actively. The production of an annual report highlights that accountability. I beg to move.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the purpose of her amendments. I remind the Committee that we are debating the Government's second choice option, an option which we hope to hold in reserve because we hope that self-regulation will achieve the objectives of this part. Nevertheless, we need to ensure that the powers we hold in reserve are adequate should we need to use them.
The first amendment to remove what the Secretary of State considers appropriate from the publicity arrangements would reduce his discretion to publicise the register and changes to it as he saw fit. It is right that the Secretary of State should have some discretion. The register will be for the benefit of customers of cryptography service providers to guide non-experts; and to help them trust and choose a service provider. If the Secretary of State is running such a scheme, it is right that he should choose how best to publicise it. He should be accountable to Parliament for such decisions, but the amendment might make his decision open to legal challenge, which is unnecessary in this case.
I also think that the specifics of the second amendment, which provides for regular consultation on the operation of the register, are unnecessary. The drafting of the amendment means that it would be very narrowly focused. On a more general point of consultation, we are already committed to consulting on the approvals criteria. When consulting on the draft Bill last July the Government said that:
"The Government is committed to developing the approvals criteria in consultation with potential applicants for approval, and users of their services, and will consult formally on all such regulation."
In the spirit of co-operation which usually characterises our debates, I am announcing that I intend to move amendments on Report to write this
CWH 4
commitment onto the face of the Bill. That will take the consultation onto a broad rather than the narrow basis of consultation in this case, which would simply refer to consulting on allowing members of the public to inspect the contents of the register and securing that publicity is given to any withdrawals. That seems a very narrowly defined basis for the consultation. But I shall write that on to the face of the Bill.
We will shortly discuss the amendments that I have tabled to ensure that the first use of the regulation-making power under this part will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Service providers will also be interested in the operating costs of the scheme. The fact that the scheme will be self-financing and voluntary will provide incentives for keeping costs down In view of that, it is not necessary to have statutory consultation on the operation of the register.
The fourth amendment is related and specifies the publication of an annual report. We shall obviously inform Parliament and others periodically of those matters. There are many well-established mechanisms for doing so, including the annual report of the Government and of each department and through Questions put to the Government by Peers. It is not necessary to create yet another formal reporting mechanism.
The third amendment is intended to ensure that the scheme is established and maintained, consistent with international best practice—a sensible aim on which we would no doubt all agree in principle and one that is consistent with the Government's desire to make the UK the best place in the world for electronic business. It is not appropriate, however, to write this on the face of the Bill. We shall discuss the international aspects in greater depth later this afternoon under Amendment No. 6 and the interaction with the EU directive and with non-EU countries. Clearly, no one would dispute the need for benchmarking against international best practice but there is nothing to be gained from putting that into legislation. I hope that with those clarifications, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. In relation to Amendment No. 1, my interpretation is that, while he recognises the need for some discretion, the clause as it stands gives total discretion as he deems appropriate in this regard. I am disappointed, therefore, that he will not move on this.
In relation to the second amendment, I am pleased that he has confirmed that he will be bringing a broader approach to the consultative process in terms of amendments on Report. With regard to the third amendment and international best practice, again I am pleased with the Minister's response. I am glad that he appreciates the importance of enunciating the need for that, notwithstanding that it is difficult to put such an important aim on the purpose of the Bill.
In relation to the fourth amendment, it is regrettable that there is not going to be—as there are in all other regulatory schemes of this kin—the delivery of an annual report to show that there is proper accountability for the approval scheme. Despite that,

CWH 5
I am pleased with the Minister's response, particularly in relation to the consultative measures which will be on the face of the Bill as we shall see at the next stage of its passage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Arrangement for the grant of approvals]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("subsection (3) applies in that person's case") and insert ("the condition for the grant of an approval to that person is fulfilled in accordance with subsection (3)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 9 and 17. These amendments would clarify the meaning of the clause and thereby fulfil an undertaking given in another place by my honourable friend Patricia Hewitt, to consider whether the clause could be simplified while preserving the necessary powers of the approval authority.
They do that in two ways: first, by expanding on the cross references between subsections (2) and (3). It has been pointed out also that the description in Clause 6(3) of cryptographic support services being provided in the UK in fact relates only to Clause 2. It therefore seems sensible that it should be moved from Clause 6 to Clause 2, which is accomplished by the amendments. They would not change the legal effect of the clause in any way. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Razzall: If the Minister is also addressing his remarks to Amendments No. 7 and 9, would it be appropriate for me to raise one point which I have raised with him in the discussions we have had on the Bill? This is in regard to Clause 2(3)(d)—lines 37 and 38 on page 2. The Minister will be aware that concern has been expressed in another place regarding the protections that are given. Albeit the nature of the register here is a voluntary one, nevertheless, if somebody is determined to be a fit and proper person to be approved in respect of the services to be provided, concern has been expressed as to whether it would be appropriate, bearing in mind the opprobrium that would be attached to that individual organisation, for an appeal procedure of some sort to be built in to the section. The Minister indicated that he would look at this point with his officials and I wonder whether he has had the opportunity to do so?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The scheme would, of course, be genuinely voluntary in that providers would only apply to be approved if they assessed the benefits of being approved as outweighing the costs. Also, the Bill does not provide for any specific legal consequences to flow from being approved by the scheme. Parties to transactions may, however, place a higher weight on electronic signatures backed by certificates issued by approved service providers. That decision would flow from the value that the market places on the approval, not from the statute.
CWH 6
The scheme would be genuinely voluntary and providers would apply to be approved only if they assessed that the benefits of being approved outweighed the costs. The scheme's value comes from setting standards at appropriate levels and rigorously assessing compliance against them—it does not come from statutory privileges.
I have set out that background because, while I can see that there might have been a case for creating a special appeals system in the case of a mandatory statutory scheme, which the previous government proposed, having a special procedure to appeal against a decision to reject an application to be approved seems unnecessarily cumbersome for the voluntary scheme at issue here.
As a statutory function, the decision whether to approve would be subject to the usual procedure of judicial review. If an unsuccessful applicant for approval applied for judicial review of the decision, the court would be able to examine whether the approvals authority had acted reasonably in coming to its decision. Given the genuine voluntary nature of the system, this is all that is necessary. The proposed amendment would make the system more complicated without any corresponding benefits.
Lord Lucas: The Minister said there would be no statutory consequences to being on the register—indeed not—but would it not be the case that the Government might, in secondary legislation, say that signatures were required to be verified by someone on the register, or that Government departments might make it a practice to require that signatures were verified by someone on the register? Would there not, therefore, be a de facto imposition of the requirement to register?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: If subsequent legislation were in some way to make this more of a statutory or essential feature, then it would be appropriate to review it in that context. However, in the context of the voluntary scheme we are talking about here, it seems inappropriate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 26, at end insert—
("() make provision for the recognition of approvals granted under other jurisdictions where the Secretary of State has agreed to recognise compatible registration procedures").
The noble Baroness said: I am sure we all agree that mutual recognition will facilitate the growth of international best practice; in which case, should a more attractive, high quality regime exist elsewhere in the world, businesses will not be deterred from setting up in the United Kingdom by our legislation. We would like to see the Government take a lead, indeed to be the vanguard in crafting the international accord that will come to promote the free market approach to this nascent industry, to benefit British companies and boost the prominence of British expertise in this area. International best practice will eventually supersede the Bill. In the meantime, there must be procedure for

CWH 7
fast-track recognition of international standards and legislation of a suitably high quality, so that businesses based on other jurisdictions are not faced with the local burdens of re-registration when establishing operations in the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll: I should like to say a few words, because this is a very sensible amendment. One point about the Internet is that it is global. There are no national boundaries and, as electronic documents become legally admissible, electronic signatures carry more weight. Where I disagree with the Minister in his previous reply is that, just because the scheme is voluntary it does not mean to say that it will not carry weight in the courts. If the voluntary scheme is successful, there is no need for a statutory scheme, so the voluntary scheme will have the weight of a statutory scheme in another country. It is therefore very naïve to suggest that there is a big difference between a voluntary scheme and a statutory scheme if you expect the voluntary scheme to succeed. This mutual recognition of standards at a national level will be essential to facilitate electronic commerce and contracts internationally.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: While I wish to thank the noble Baroness for this amendment and for her helpful explanation, I am afraid that we are not disposed to accept it. The main point is that recognition of an approval in another jurisdiction does not have any direct legal consequences. In undertaking to recognise approvals in other jurisdictions, the Secretary of State would be solely involved in elaborate negotiations which would not necessarily benefit businesses or citizens. The recognition of certificates from other countries is best left to industry and the market. For business, the importance is that their certificates will be recognised by their counterparties and other certification service providers. The former is down to the reputation and standing of the certification service provider, while the latter depends on technical cross-certification arrangements being in place between the respective providers. Those are matters that are primarily for the market and international standards bodies rather than for government to determine. On that basis, perhaps the noble Baroness will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Lucas: I return again to the subject I raised before. If that is the case, will the noble Lord say now that it is not the Government's intention for their own operations, or in second legislation, to demand that it has to be certification on the UK register that allows a signature to be in electronic form. In other words, they are quite happy if they, for instance, allow electronic certification to be the case for transfer of property, that certification by a company under the US register will be just as satisfactory as one under the UK register. Otherwise we are imposing a system of multiple registration on companies, which will be immensely inefficient.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No decisions have yet been taken about what sort of signatures will be required for different services and there is no intention to exclude good quality foreign providers from this process. Therefore, I believe that this can be dealt with administratively.
The Earl of Erroll: Before the Minister sits down, I have probably misunderstood the whole thing. I thought that the purpose was eventually to make electronic documents admissible in the courts because signatures would be recognised and it would not be just between two companies. At some point there will be a row and it will be tested in the courts. Will every single service provider of certificates have to be tested for quality individually in each court case? I thought the whole idea was to have some sort of national certification, in general, of these service providers so that one would know which service providers one can trust on a more national level instead of having to test every single one in the courts which, it seems from what the Minister is saying, is going to happen.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The whole purpose of the clause is that there will be a national register of providers of cryptographic services which will have a kitemark that can be relied upon. The question of whether a particular electronic signature is valid before a court will have to be decided by that court. However, there will be a national register of cryptographic services to acceptable standards, and that is what the clause is about.
Baroness Buscombe: I believe that I have understood the Minister's response. However, I am concerned that it does not deal with the question of re-registration, to which noble Lords have referred. Without the proposed amendment there will necessarily be a situation in which there are multiple registrations when overseas companies establish operations in the United Kingdom. I shall read what the Minister said in Hansard and possibly return to this subject on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 27, leave Out from beginning to ("the") and insert ("The condition that must be fulfilled before an approval is granted to any person is that").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert—
("() is a small enterprise or company as defined by the Secretary of State, shall be remunerated by the Secretary of State for the time committed to the registration process on a sliding scale which recognises the disproportionate burden placed by such procedures on the smallest businesses.").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 8 which reflects a serious need to consider the recognition of the disproportionate burden placed upon small businesses for lost time, increased costs

CWH 9
and more red tape. Over the past three years the smallest businesses have faced a burden of red tape that has increased by two hours per week according to the Current Small Business Research Trust/National Westminster survey. Additional burdens cost those one to five-employee firms up to £1,700 per annum according to the accountancy profession.
It is interesting to note that the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, in his capacity as Chairman of the Government's Better Regulation Task Force, said only last week when launching the report of the task force that,
"The Government should recognise the additional burdens it is placing on employers and consider some form of financial support."
The electronic communications revolution encourages many new businesses and, most importantly, those that do not have to put up with our regulatory burdens in order to survive; they can exist elsewhere. We want them to thrive here in the United Kingdom. We want the United Kingdom to remain ahead of its European partners in e-commerce. We thought that the Government were beginning to recognise the need for wealth creation as the source of prosperity for all. Increased burdens as proposed in the clause will only compromise that aim. I am compelled to add that the prospect of IR35 is bound to drive those businesses away from these shores altogether. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am sure that the noble Baroness tables the amendment with the intention of helping small businesses, or at least making a speech about the problems that they face. However, despite what the noble Baroness says, as drafted the amendment would have bizarre consequences. It would have the effect that all those persons who applied to be approved would have to be paid by the Secretary of State for the efforts that they expended in registering rather than pay the Secretary of State fees consistent with the benefit that approval conferred. I would hope that the noble Baroness did not intend that effect. It is a normal principle that the cost of regulation should be borne by those who are being regulated, and I see no reason why part of these costs should be borne by the taxpayer.
The other point, however, concerns the fee structure for small firms. I assure the noble Baroness that both in any statutory scheme and in the T Scheme, which we hope will be introduced by industry, the fee structure will reflect the size of the business applying to be approved according to the cost of approving and monitoring businesses of various different sizes. On that basis perhaps the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
4 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I did indeed intend what the proposed amendment sets out; that is, that this should to some extent relieve the burdens on small businesses; that small businesses should be recognised for the burdens that are placed upon them now, and that there should be remuneration for the extra time involved in carrying out the duties imposed under this proposed
CWH 10
clause. However, it is clear that the Minister is not minded to accept this and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 27, at end insert—
("(10) For the purposes of subsection (1) cryptography support services are provided in the United Kingdom if—

(a) they are provided from premises in the United Kingdom

(b) they are provided to a person who is in the United Kingdom when he makes use of the services; or

(c) they are provided to a person who makes use of the services for the purposes of a business carried on in the United Kingdom or from premises in the United Kingdom.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 28, after ("person") insert ("or organisation").
The noble Baroness said: We believe that the Secretary of State should consider delegating this activity to an existing trade body. We have concerns about this clause as we believe it threatens the establishment of another regulator, with all the resulting problems of accountability. In the e-commerce area the case for an e-regulator has yet to be made. However, if such a regulator is to be appointed then a professional body or society is, we believe, just as capable of regulating the industry as any individual, and through its collective knowledge is likely to have a much higher level of understanding. A self-regulatory regime based on the industry's own trade body could work well.
It is one of the traits of this Government to mistrust an independent professional body or voluntary group and they would prefer to opt for external regulators whose staff often do not understand the issues involved. The extent to which it was necessary to modify the draft Bill after informed lobbying from the industry we believe shows that that is a misguided attitude. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I thank the noble Baroness for clarifying her intentions. I should however make it clear that the term "person" is defined by the Interpretation Act to include a body of persons corporate or unincorporate and "person" thus already covers organisations. There is therefore no need for this amendment and I hope the noble Baroness will be persuaded to withdraw it.
Baroness Buscombe: I am glad the Minister clarified that point, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Delegation of approval functions]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Restrictions on disclosure of information]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 3, after ("prescribed") insert ("public").
The noble Lord said: These amendments to Clause 4 deal with a recommendation by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, which saw the need for the power in subsection (2)(c), but considered that it was too widely drawn. Clause 4 protects regulatory information gathered under Part 1.
As with many similar provisions in other legislation, it provides that information may be disclosed only through certain gateways. The power in subsection (2)(c) allows the Secretary of State to add new gateways, which is necessary because we do not know exactly how the regulatory regime would develop if it were ever brought into force. For example, if banks applied to be approved, it would be desirable to permit the exchange of information with their regulator, the Financial Services Authority.
As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State could make regulations to permit disclosure for any functions which he prescribed. The amendments would narrow that down so that he could prescribe only public functions.
Perhaps I could mention another aspect of these gateways. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, asked me how this clause will interact with the Data Protection Act. Both place restrictions on the disclosure of information and both permit disclosure subject to certain conditions being satisfied. They work in different ways, however, and the clause goes much wider than personal information since it also concerns information about business. These are complex issues and I will say something further about the interaction at Report stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("prescribed").
Page 5, line 15, at end insert—
("() In subsection (2)(c) "public functions" includes any function conferred by or in accordance with any provision contained in or made under any enactment or Community legislation.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Regulations under Part 1.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 29, after ("instrument") insert (", which (except in the case of the initial regulations) shall be").
The noble Lord said: These amendments, which I anticipated at Second Reading, would meet the other two recommendations of the Select Committee on delegated powers and deregulation. They concern the degree of parliamentary control that would be
CWH 12
exercised if the Government's preference for self-regulation could not be achieved and the Government then decided to implement the statutory regime in Part I.
Amendment No. 34 would mean that Part I could not be commenced unless each House had approved the commencement order. This amendment would write on the face of the Bill my honourable friend Patricia Hewitt's commitments in another place to return to Parliament before commencing Part I.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are closely related as they would mean that the first time the Secretary of State exercised his regulation-making powers in Part 1 of the Bill, they would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. On subsequent occasions they would be subject to negative resolution procedure. Taken together, these amendments strike a sensible balance between ensuring parliamentary control over a decision to implement Part I and ensuring that, if the statutory approval scheme were to be implemented, it could be operated in a flexible and responsive way after its creation. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: Can the Minister confirm my understanding that there are no regulation-making powers in this part which would be used in any circumstances other than a full-blown creation of a regulatory procedure? Can he further confirm that none of these powers would be used in any way to supplement or back up a voluntary scheme, and therefore appear rather earlier than we expect?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I think this has to be taken as a single part and therefore could not be used to back up a voluntary scheme.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 30, at end insert—
("() The initial regulations shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
()in this section "the initial regulations" means the regulations made on the first occasion on which the Secretary of State exercises his powers to make regulations under this Part.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Provision of cryptography support services.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Electronic signatures and related certificates]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 17, after ("incorporated") insert ("into").
The noble Lord said: The three amendments to Clause 7 and the first amendment to Clause 8 simply correct the grammar. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I would be grateful if the noble Lord could explain Amendment No. 19 in rather more detail. I had always thought that the parliamentary draftsmen were the enemies of good grammar. They have certainly refused many amendments of mine that I thought improved the wording of statute. However, in this case I really cannot see what the effect of that is even on the grammar and I would be grateful for elucidation.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Where the Bill says, "an electronic signature incorporated", the amendment inserts the word "into", so that it reads
"incorporated into or logically associated with a particular electronic communication or particular electronic data"
and it just leaves out the word "with". It is correct, though not something that one would normally spot, to leave out the word "with" in that context.
Lord Razzall: On these grammatical amendments, I wonder whether this is an opportunity for me to raise two slightly more fundamental points on Clause 7, on which he indicated he would make a statement in Committee today.
First, there is what I would describe as the Microsoft point, which is, as I said at Second Reading, not necessarily a reason for rejecting it. The approach of Clause 7, as the Minister has indicated, is clearly one under which the 40,000 estimated references to writing in various statutes will be left to the appropriate Ministers—dare I say, civil servants—to deal with. That is the approach of Clause 7. It is the Microsoft argument and the argument of other computer companies that it would have been better to approach it the other way round, so that there is a general recognition that electronic signatures are substituted for writing wherever they appear in legislation, subject to a general carve-out. I believe the Minister has a very clear argument as to why the Government have taken this particular view and it would be helpful to the Committee if he were to explain it.
The second point is to ask for confirmation, also in relation to Clause 7. There has been a suggestion that Clause 7 does not comply with our obligations under the European directive with regard to electronic signatures. I know that the Minister disagrees with that view but it would be helpful if he could set out the Government's position on it.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We have made our position clear and the point which the noble Lord is really addressing relates to Clauses 7 and 8 together. In light of Parliament having laid down certain things in legislation there are some 40,000 references to documents written signed or delivered and so on. We should proceed by looking at these in detail rather than on a basis of saying that we shall automatically allow all those to be done electronically. That point was
CWH 14
raised at Second Reading and is fundamental to the Bill. Indeed, we have thoroughly rehearsed the arguments for doing that.
I am also asked how Clause 7 implements Article 5 of the EU Electronic Signature Directive and perhaps I can cover that point. Article 5(1) of the directive concerns advanced electronic signatures being given the same legal effect as hand-written signatures. Clause 7 makes all electronic signatures admissible in UK courts and we do not, therefore, need to make explicit provision for advanced electronic signatures. We will, of course, in the context of orders made under Clause 8, need to ensure that the requirements of Article 5(1) are adhered to.
Article 5(2) of the Electronic Signature Directive is intended to ensure that any electronic signature, in other words even those that do not meet the standards of those considered advanced electronic signatures are not denied legal effect. Clearly, the approach taken in Clause 7 also implements this. In discussions with the Commission it has been noted that the proposed language in Clause 7 encompasses, and in some ways is broader than, the requirement for legal admissibility in Article 5(2) of the directive.
To complete the picture, Article 1 provides that the directive does not interfere with national or Community requirements of form regarding the use of documents; in other words, the directive is concerned with the admissibility of signatures, as in Clause 7, and does not deal with other barriers to the use of electronic means which this Bill deals with in Clause 8.
In summary, I am confident that we are implementing the requirements of the directive relating to the admissibility of signatures; indeed, we are going further.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 32, leave out second ("with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas: This may be a convenient moment to raise some points upon which I touched at Second Reading; namely, proof of delivery and believability of signatures. I seek elucidation from the Minister as to how these matters are to be dealt with. One of the important things to know about a document is that it has been delivered. There are conventions as to when a letter has been delivered. What kinds of conventions does the Minister intend shall come into force as to the

CWH 15
delivery of an electronic document? Is it delivered when it has left someone's PC, or does it have to be certified at a later stage in the network?
As to the believability of signatures, for example in the purchase or sale of a house there is a chain of people, each of whom is identifiable and believable. That makes the signature that is written believable to the person who must place reliance upon it. There is myself and a couple of solicitors at the end of the chain. At each point in the chain there is person-to-person recognition. That transmits the believability of the signature from one end of the chain to the other. How does the Minister envisage this will happen if it is merely an electronic process without any people evidently being involved in it? How can one place that kind of personal reliance on an electronic signature as representing real money and real people with whom one can deal at the end of the day?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: There are two different issues here. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the question of delivery of documents. This is the kind of issue that is raised in a whole series of legislative measures. It makes the point exactly as to why one has to go through individual parts of the legislation and establish these facts rather than try simply to cut through the whole of this legislation by saying that electronic signatures are acceptable. We have to work through these matters and say that in certain cases some kind of proof of delivery must be given and in others not. That makes the case entirely for the way that we approach this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that point.
As to authenticity and integrity, they are absolutely fundamental to the whole subject that we are debating here. On the one hand one has registration; on the other one has the certification by the cryptographic services. The one who certifies an individual is the relevant person in this case. The other is about whether that person, having put the signature into some kind of electronic communication, knows at the other end that there is integrity to it. These are exactly the sort of issues that certification and cryptographic service providers are there to address.
The Earl of Erroll: There is a big difference between sending out a document and receiving a document. If you have received a document which may have contractual materials in it, and it has an acceptable electronic signature from an approved and certified service provider who may also be providing cryptography services, you know you have a contract.
Sending out a document is a completely different matter, that of trying to prove that someone has received something. However, the two are totally different. It does not deny the blanket approach, saying that if you have received something that should be legally admissible, and it should be possible to use that in court in a blanket sense.
The other problem is sending something out and not knowing whether it has arrived. You may well not know. Recently a document took three days to reach
CWH 16
me from America, having been held up on various servers. Proof of receipt from the point of view of the person sending is a different problem, but the other approach should be there. There should be blanket recognition that if you have received a document, the electronic signature should be acceptable for all documents that are otherwise acceptable in court, as an alternative to a written signature.
Lord Lucas: The question goes beyond what the noble Lord said. The noble Lord said that we agree with one another, that these are problems to be faced. However, I was hoping for some guidance from the Minister as to the way the Government are thinking these problems might be solved. Then we can understand in the course of considering this Bill that it makes proper provision for this to be done in an acceptable way. I would, therefore, be very grateful if the noble Lord could at least give a couple of examples of the sort of proof of delivery that the Government would consider acceptable in particular circumstances, and to refer again to the question of believability of signatures. If I receive a signature, and presumably it checks out, it is the signature of what? Of an electronic name and address. How do I make the connection to the person, so that I know the signature is that of a real person, rather than just an electronic identity which goes with a cryptographic signature?
We have been looking at this in Clause 8 in some detail. It is very important that there is a real person at the other end who can be sued if things go wrong. If you are transferring real property you only have the right to sue. In many circumstances you do not have the right to get your property back. It is therefore important that you know what is at the other end rather than simply that a signature is valid.
Taking that particular example, how do the Government imagine that chain of knowledge of the identity of people will be maintained? Do they think we will need a chain of solicitors to do it, which means that it will be impossible to run a totally electronic system to transfer property? Will we have to change the law of property in some way to make the position of the seller rather better than it is at the moment under a system which presumes there is this exchange of knowledge underlying the signature?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The noble Lord is simply reiterating the point, which is that in different circumstances there are very detailed regulations in our English law which cover exactly these issues. The question of when a document or message is said to have been delivered to a person is something that is laid down in great detail in legislation, and that is for very good reasons. Rather than simply saying that we should abandon all that legislation, we believe it is appropriate to take it subject by subject and look at the particular circumstances of each case so that these can be redefined in terms of electronic signatures. He referred to all the points that will have to be addressed as we go through the legislation outlining what we mean for delivery of this document in these particular circumstances; whether it is exchanging a house or whatever. These are precisely what need to be

CWH 17
considered in detail and it seems impossible to produce a blanket situation to cover all those different circumstances.
The second issue is the whole nature of cryptographic services. Taking this as a process, there are three aspects to the question of electronic signatures. The first is to establish that those involved are who they say they are—a process that will have to take place in the certification procedure. The person providing the cryptographic services will then confirm their identity and provide a method of establishing that through a process of certification. The second process is to ensure that only that specific person logs into the machine—that is, someone else has not got hold of that electronic signature. The third process—and the purpose of cryptography—is to make certain that the signature in is not tampered with until it comes out at the other end.
This Bill is about the precise nature of cryptographic services and certification. It aims to ensure that the chain, from the originator establishing his or her identity through to the receiver of the electronic communication being able to check that identity by the use of the cryptographic keys and the certification provided by the cryptographic service is not broken. Assurance can thus be given that the person is indeed who he claims to be.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO ACCEPT ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE
(".—(1) Any person may make an irrevocable declaration in writing to accept an electronic signature in all circumstances, or any class of circumstances, where legislation requires such signature to be in another form.
(2) A declaration under subsection (1) shall be valid for all purposes in the circumstances set out in the declaration.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is not intended to be taken seriously as an addition to the text of the Bill, but offers an opportunity to discuss how we are to deal with what will be a long sequence of detailed and different provisions for the acceptance of electronic signatures in many thousands of different statutorily defined cases. It will be extremely difficult for the ordinary man in the street—or indeed the ordinary organisation—to know exactly where they are at any particular point in time, as to what statutory provisions have or have not been made with regard to the acceptance of electronic signatures.
I am here suggesting that an organisation—a county council or some switched-on city council—might say that it will accept anything in electronic form; that whatever the statute says it will accept an electronic signature. That way, it can run its business efficiently without worrying whether the specific regulations in a specific area have been complied with. It may decide that electronic signatures are good enough and that it will allow individuals to make the same decision so far as their own lives are concerned. It may give statutory force to such a decision, which may not be a sensible approach.
I should like to understand from the Minister how, as a matter of practicality, we are to deal with this fast and continuously changing scene and know where we are if we do not have something like this in the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll: That sounds like a sensible proposal. If we are not to have a system whereby electronic signatures are legally admissible as an alternative to written ones, for two parties physically to sign a piece of paper to confirm their agreement to accept each other's electronic signatures and for that to be binding sounds a very simple way to proceed in the interim. It may in fact speed things up and render a great deal of work by civil servants behind the scenes, trying to bring statute law into line, totally redundant because we will just get on with life as normal.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for notifying me of his intention to pursue the point which he made on Second Reading. What he said follows on from his general approach to these issues. Perhaps I may clarify the complex legal picture surrounding requirements for signatures, and I hope that in the light of this, I shall be able to persuade him to withdraw his amendment.
First, I remind the Committee of a general principle of English law. The parties to any transaction should, in general, be able to decide how to carry out the transaction. Clearly both parties need to agree the terms, and there is the danger that one party might be in a position to impose his terms on the weaker party. Hence there are many exceptions to this principle, where specific requirements of form are specified in legislation or other instruments made under legislation. Updating such requirements for the electronic age is the subject of Clause 8, which we shall discuss next.
There are other transactions, generally where government are not a party, and when there is no specific piece of legislation specifying the form. In such cases, including, for example, the vast majority of contracts under English law, the parties to the transaction are free to decide how to carry it out. If they subsequently have a dispute and take it to court, the court will weigh the evidence presented to it. Clause 7, which deals with admissibility of electronic signatures, will give people much greater confidence in using electronic signatures in these cases. As is stated in paragraph 43 of the Explanatory Notes:
"Some businesses have contracted with each other about how they are to treat each other's electronic communications. Clause 7 does not cast any doubt on such arrangements."
So people already have the freedom to choose to accept electronic signatures, or indeed unsigned electronic messages, from people they trust in specified circumstances. Many lawyers would argue that in the current absence of Clause 7, it is sensible to underpin such an understanding with a paper contract. The amendment would broaden this freedom by allowing a person to choose to make something akin to such a contract, but an open-ended one with the world at

CWH 19
large or that part of the world satisfying a class of circumstances. I am not sure how many people would want to do this, but in any case the amendment would create other problems.
The amendment is limited to the ability to accept electronic signatures where there is a legislative requirement for the signature to be in another form. It would effectively allow parties to contract out of such a legislative requirement and would undoubtedly bring about great uncertainty. Furthermore, in many cases the barrier to accepting electronic means will be something else. Existing law has grown up over hundreds of years, mainly before e-mail, etc., was thought of. So there are many "accidental" barriers to doing things electronically—the need for a "document"; for something to be "posted"; or, in the case we were talking about, something to be "delivered". The Government intend to update those matters on a case-by-case basis, by using Clause 8. Providing the ability to accept electronic signatures across the board may not get us as far as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, intends. However, broadening his amendment to cover other barriers to electronic means would cause the problems that we will come on to discuss in the debate on Clause 8 and what has become known as "carve-out".
The amendment may also have the effect of weakening the protection of citizens where existing legislation calls for paper-based signatures. It could have the effect of putting a person in a position to accept any type of electronic signatures whereas a subsequent Clause 8 order to allow electronic signatures to be used may well satisfy requirements that must be met with regard to the trust and security of the signatures which are used.
I hope that my assurances that people are free to choose to contract using electronic signatures in most cases and my preview of the other barriers to transacting electronically is enough to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation, and of course I shall withdraw my amendment. But I would be grateful if the Minister could say, under the circumstances where we shall be faced with this progression of orders, how long the Government think it will take to get to the end of this process. There are many ministries and pieces of legislation to be looked at, and will entail a great deal of effort on behalf of the Civil Service. Is that something that is already timetabled into the current three-year plan, or is it something which is seen to extend beyond that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We are concerned to see how this process can be speeded up, but by its very definition it is impossible to say, given the scale of this problem, how quickly that can be done, as we simply do not know all the detail that is required.
Lord Lucas: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Power to modify legislation]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 8, line 29, at end insert ("be").
On Question amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, line 30, at end insert—
("() any such provision in relation to electronic communications or electronic storage the use of which is authorised otherwise than by an order under this section as corresponds to any provision falling within any of the preceding paragraphs that may be made where it is such an order that authorises the use of the communications or storage.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I would also like to speak to Amendment No. 26.
These are both technical amendments to amplify the power contained in Clause 8.
Amendment No. 25 is intended to make sure that the clause works in the same way when an order facilitates electronic communication as when the order authorises electronic communication.
Clause 8 is designed to operate on a broad range of barriers to doing things electronically. In some cases there may be a clear statutory barrier, and in such a case the Clause 8 order would authorise electronic communication. But in other cases the law may be less clear cut. There may be room in existing legislation to argue that a statutory requirement could he met by using electronic means. In such cases the order could facilitate what was already authorised. The Government policy is to encourage a level playing field between electronic and traditional ways of doing things.
Where people find it possible to meet a statutory requirement using electronic means, because of the drafting of the original legislation they might have had to use electronic means in a rather roundabout way. In such cases a Clause 8 order could be used to provide a more efficient electronic process which could satisfy the statutory requirement.
Finally, many who have welcomed the Government's policy to remove barriers have urged that there should be consistency in the way different departments handle electronic communication. It will not always be possible to have complete consistency across the board, but arrangements will be made to encourage consistency where possible, and it is desirable to be able to include the facilitated cases as well as the authorised cases. There may also be cases where the existing legislation is quite explicit in authorising electronic communication, but again a Clause 8 order might be used to provide consistency.
I have spoken about electronic communication for ease of exposition, but the amendment will do exactly the same thing for electronic storage.
I will now explain Amendment No. 26. The Clause 8 power is capable of operating on both primary and secondary legislation. As it stands it is

CWH 21
debatable whether Clause 8 could operate by modifying a power to make secondary legislation. This amendment would put it beyond doubt that it could. So, where the Secretary of State has an existing power to specify the form of such storage, which expressly or implicitly restricts the electronic option, the amended clause would allow him to modify the existing power to allow for electronic options. In some circumstances this may be more desirable than exercising the two powers concurrently or sequentially.
It may be helpful if I give a brief example. If the Secretary of State had power to make regulations in a piece of primary legislation, and that power stated that the written form of document may be prescribed by regulations, this amendment would allow the regulation-making power to be amended to allow the electronic alternative. Otherwise the power to allow the electronic alternative would derive from Clause 8 of the Bill, and would have to use this power concurrently with the power to make regulation in order to amend the regulations. This would be required every time to amend the regulations.
With this amendment a Clause 8 order could be made once to amend the primary legislation and that part could be used thereafter to amend the regulations with regard to the electronic option as and when necessary. This amendment would also pave the way for part of the new clause we are about to debate concerning conferring powers on the National Assembly for Wales. In some areas, the assembly will have a power to specify the form of some communicational storage but only Westminster, rather than the assembly, would usually be able to modify that power. Taking the amendments would allow the assembly to modify such a power subject to the safeguards in the new clause and in Clause 8. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I find it fascinating that the same brain which has such exquisite grammatical sensibility as to remove a redundant "with" earlier in the Bill should land Amendment No. 25 on us, which, after much study, I am only able to begin to understand because of the eloquence of the Minister's explanation. I still read it again, with very great difficulty, to know why this particular form has been chosen. I hope that some attention might be paid to render this into English before the Bill leaves us. It would certainly be helpful to any future user of the Bill.
I particularly find it very difficult to know how this wording fits with the wording at the beginning of subsection 4, which reads,
"containing any of the following provisions—(a) [any such] provision".
It is very difficult to know how that works in logic let alone grammar, and I can see that the grammatical construction of what follows might mean what the Minister says it means but clearly it would be very helpful if it meant that in plain English.
Earl Erroll: I seem to remember there was a great deal of talk about trying to write our laws in clearer English and we debate that possibility from time to
CWH 22
time. There is an excellent body called the Plain English Campaign which has been very good at writing all sorts of banking information and my credit card information into English which I can now understand. Would it be an idea if it looked at this?
Baroness Buscombe: I shall say a few brief words in defence of those who are drafting the Bill. From a legal standpoint it is extremely difficult to say what has to be said without it sometimes coming across as rather complex. It is only fair to make that point for those who are here today and, I am sure, find great difficulty in making legislation as clear as they can.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I can confirm that when I read this clause for the first time it did not strike me with an enormous, illuminating beam of light, but required a great amount of thought in order to understand it. It does what it is intended to do and I hope my explanation made that clear. However, I would not want to recommend it as a piece of prose.
Lord Lucas: Will the Minister at least promise me that he will ask his officials whether they might not see their way to render it into plain English, if such is possible, and I take my noble friend's strictures in that regard very seriously.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, line 30, at end insert—
("(any such provision in relation to electronic communications or electronic storage the use of which is authorised otherwise than by an order under this section as corresponds to any provision falling within any of the preceding paragraphs that may be made where it is such an order that authorises the use of the communications or storage.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 9, line 4, at end insert—
("(8) In this section references to doing anything under the provisions of any enactment include references to doing it under the provisions of any subordinate legislation the power to make which is conferred by that enactment.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, whether Clause 8, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas: Following on our earlier discussions on the sort of things which will have to be tackled under Clause 8, I wonder whether we have let ourselves become too lax in the supervision which this House is going to place on the resulting orders. These could be quite deep and difficult matters, as the Minister pointed out. As I understand it, the general power in Clause 8 is that of the negative resolution, but there is a procedure to lay drafts before the House which are then approved by both Houses. Can the Minister give me some comfort as to the circumstances under which drafts would be laid, rather than leaving a final order to come before us in the negative procedure? Can we

CWH 23
be sure that, in all cases where something fundamental is being tackled, we will have the opportunity to debate it as fully as is possible when it is only secondary legislation?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee was happy with this matter on the basis that the affirmative procedure would be adopted for new issues on important subjects, but eventually when it became a matter of routine it would not be appropriate to follow that line.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Section 8 orders]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 9, line 6, at end insert ("and section (Modifications in relation to Welsh matters)(1))").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 are designed to ensure that the National Assembly for Wales can exercise the order-making power in Clause 8. Clause 9(7) already gives powers to Scottish Ministers. The principal amendment is Amendment No. 30, on which I should like to focus, the others being consequential amendments. The new clause is quite complex but I hope that, once I have explained its purpose, Members of the Committee will agree that it is desirable.
It is right that the Assembly should be able to use the order-making power in Clause 8 of the Bill to authorise or facilitate electronic communication in relation to functions which are exercisable by it. These functions may have been transferred to the assembly by means of a transfer of function order under the Government of Wales Act 1998 or via primary legislation. In essence the new clause would allow the assembly, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to make orders in any one of the circumstances set out in subsection (3).
First, the assembly could make an order under Clause 8 in relation to subordinate legislation or other powers for which the assembly was responsible by virtue of subsection (3)(a) to (c). For example, the assembly has power to make regulations under the Social Security Act 1990 to allocate grants under home energy efficiency schemes. It could, therefore, make an order under Clause 8 to provide for the electronic communication and storage of applications, works and purchase orders, and so on. Second, it could do so in relation to any notice, account, record or document sent by or to the assembly, or to or by any public bodies, subject to reform by the assembly, by virtue of subsection (3)(d). Finally, it could do so in relation to publication by the Assembly or by the public bodies under subsection (3)(e). The relevant public bodies are listed in Schedule 4 to the Government of Wales Act and include organisations such as the Welsh Development Agency, the Wales Tourist Board and the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales.
Subsection (4)(c) of the new clause allows the Secretary of State, with the consent of the assembly, to add to the list of bodies for which the assembly can
CWH 24
make Section 8 orders in relation to subsection (3)(d) and (e); that is, the sending of notices, accounts and so on. I have written to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation to draw his attention to this new order-making power. In all other matters relating to Wales it would be for the appropriate Minister to make the order. There will, therefore, be no danger of anything being missed or Wales being left behind.
Finally, Amendment No. 32 would prevent the National Assembly from making any order under the Bill which would require a person to "escrow" any encryption key with another person. This is in line with our policy for the remainder of the UK. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:
Page 9, line 22, after ("(4)") insert ("and section (Modifications in relation to Welsh matters)(6)").
Page 9, line 36, leave out ("appropriate Minister") and insert ("person making the order").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
MODIFICATIONS IN RELATION TO WELSH MATTERS
(".—(1) For the purposes of the exercise of the powers conferred by section 8 in relation to any matter the functions in respect of which are exercisable by the National Assembly for Wales, the appropriate Minister is the Secretary of State.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the powers conferred by section 8, so far as they fall within subsection (3), shall be exercisable by the National Assembly for Wales, as well as by the appropriate Minister.
(3) The powers conferred by section 8 fall within this subsection to the extent that they are exercisable in relation to—

(a) the provisions of any subordinate legislation made by the National Assembly for Wales;

(b) so much of any other subordinate legislation as makes provision the power to make which is exercisable by that Assembly;

(c) any power under any enactment to make provision the power to make which is so exercisable;

(d) the giving, sending or production of any notice, account, record or other document or of any information to or by a body mentioned in subsection (4); or

(e) the publication of anything by a body mentioned in subsection (4).

(4) Those bodies are—

(a) the National Assembly for Wales;

(b) any body specified in Schedule 4 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 (Welsh public bodies subject to reform by that Assembly);

(c) any other such body as may be specified for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State with the consent of that Assembly.

(5) The National Assembly for Wales shall not make an order under section 8 except with the consent of the Secretary of State.
(6) Section 9(3) shall not apply to any order made under section 8 by the National Assembly for Wales.
(7) Nothing in this section shall confer any power on the National Assembly for Wales to modify any provision of the Government of Wales Act 1998.
(8) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under subsection (4)(c)—

(a) shall include power to make any such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as he may think fit; and

(b) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
DIRECT MARKETING
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument, provide for the regulation of the use of electronic communications for direct marketing purposes.
(2) An order under subsection (1)—

(a) may impose duties both on the persons using electronic communications for direct marketing purposes and on the persons providing the facilities enabling such use, and

(b) shall be laid in draft before, and subject to approval by resolution of, each House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: Not so long ago the Government took very welcome action to deal with junk faxes. I am not quite clear whether that is yet in force, but I continue to receive such material and cannot identify anyone to advise me as to whom I should address my complaints. However, perhaps I have not been sufficiently diligent. I also receive a large quantity of junk e-mail, some of which might best be described as offensive, and certainly would be offensive if received by a minor.
It is now the law in the state of California that people sending out direct marketing by e-mail have to include markers in the title which will enable people to exclude it if they do not wish to receive it. Similar strictures are made on people providing facilities such as ISPs to ensure that anyone using their facilities to send out junk mail does so under the regulations of the state of California and not otherwise.
It seems to me that there is scope for doing something similar in our law. I shall not press too hard for the provision to be included in this Bill, but I would be grateful to know what the Government intend to do to spare us from this particular nuisance. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The new clause would enable the Government to introduce regulations with very wide-ranging effect on distance selling. I am not at all persuaded that we should go down that route. In general, the same laws should apply online as offline, and the Government are committed to a light touch approach to the regulation of electronic commerce.
People may have a concern about the whole question of Spam e-mail—the equivalent of junk mail. None of us likes to be inundated with e-mail we do not want, but we need to strike a balance between curbing such abuse and allowing the Internet to be used as a legitimate form of advertising. It is desirable to
CWH 26
provide a degree of protection for consumers from a flood of unwanted e-mail, but in general business recipients should be able to look after themselves. The Government will regulate the sending of Spam e-mail to consumers through regulations implementing the Distance Selling Directive which we plan to bring into force in June this year. There is no evidence to show that a similar provision is needed for business-to-business communications, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments, which answer my question, and I am delighted to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas: Under the question of Clause 10 stand part, perhaps I might raise a subject upon which I dwelt a little at Second Reading; that is, ASDL.
It is important when we have before us that rare thing—a Bill which enables us to look at telecommunications licences—to consider how we intend to allow for the provision of ASDL throughout the country. This must be done in a way which does not result in the social exclusion of large parts of the countryside, as it may if we are to rely on the current system of telecommunications licences. Again, amending this Bill may not be the best way to achieve that, but we ought at least to know, while we have this opportunity in front of us, that this is not the occasion on which we should be trying to do so because the Government have other plans for making sure that ASDL will be available at distances greater than three miles from BT main exchanges.
The obvious way of doing this is to carry it on the masts which already litter the countryside to provide mobile communications. If the ASDL reached them through what are mainly radio links, it could run out from them to neighbouring households who wish to pay for it. It is important, particularly as farming declines and probably will continue to decline over the long term as an employer, that we enable employment in the countryside and in remote areas which are reliant at the moment on hill farming. A crucial factor in being able to run a modern business, from Aberystwyth or the hills above, is communications. If you cannot get ASDL because you are ten miles from the nearest BT exchange, that part of the countryside is effectively going to be sterilised for business development. We need to understand now how the Government are planning to tackle this problem.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This is a matter which the Government take very seriously indeed, coming as it does at the heart of our plans to give everyone in the country access to these new technologies. The subject is vital, though not a matter for this particular Bill and there will be opportunities to come back to the subject over the next year. We hope then to be able to put forward some concrete ideas to deal with the issue. I should like to put on record that I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising it.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Prohibition on key escrow requirements]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 13, line 29, after ("Ministers") insert (", on the National Assembly for Wales").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Short title, commencement, extent]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 33:
Page 15, line 11, after ("appoint;") insert (";that day being not less than six months after the publication of the statutory instrument, during which period the Secretary of State shall consult businesses, bodies and persons likely to be interested in it").
The noble Baroness said: The Minister has already spoken this afternoon in relation to his intention to bring forward, on Report, an amendment which deals on the face of the Bill with the need for a broad, consultative approach to the provision of a register of approved providers of cryptographic services. In the light of his comments, I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 15, line 12, at end insert—
("() An order shall not be made for bringing any of Part I of this Act into force for any purpose unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 15, line 14, leave out ("five") and insert ("three").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 35. Because the technology and the marketplace are moving so rapidly, any regulations should be subject to an annual review. If the Government are unable effectively to oversee implementation of Part I and with the right safeguards in place on a voluntary basis, well within a three year period, they will have failed the industry and all who are interested in it. We should like to see the Government demonstrate their confidence in the sound and exciting development of the electronic communications environment and the ability of the e-commerce industry to self-regulate by reducing the prospect of a statutory scheme from five years to three. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for setting out the reasoning behind her amendment. This issue is of course not new. It was raised during our Second Reading debate and in Committee in another place. I note the arguments for
CWH 28
a reduction in the length of the period at the end of which Part I would be repealed. However, I remain convinced that five years is the most appropriate length of time. I need not reiterate the preference of the Government for self-regulation, nor our commitment to working with the Alliance for Electronic Business to help ensure that the T Scheme is a success. We are confident that this scheme can deliver but as I made clear during Second Reading, it would be foolish to assume that its success is guaranteed.
The market is immature and it is only right that we keep the possibility of introducing a statutory scheme in reserve at least for the medium term. The question is for how long the option should be retained for introducing a statutory scheme. We have good reason to choose five years as the sunset period. It is not a figure plucked at random. The AEB has estimated that the T Scheme will be operational in the third-quarter of this year. Allowing for some slippage, this could mean that the scheme is not fully operational until almost a year after Royal Assent. It may well take a year or so after that for the scheme to bed down, for sufficient service providers to seek and gain approval, for approved services providers to have sufficient customers and for any initial problems to have been ironed out.
We want to assess the T Scheme over a period of time once this bedding down period has taken place before making a considered judgment on whether the powers to set up a statutory scheme can lapse.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, would mean that we would have to take a decision on whether to implement a statutory scheme before we had given the T Scheme a chance to iron out any teething troubles. If there were initial problems the Government may come under pressure to introduce the statutory scheme, whereas with a longer period on which to assess the situation the problems may be satisfactorily addressed. On the other hand, if we ignore the early problems and, despite them, let the statutory powers lapse, then we may come to regret such a decision.
The Government's preference is to let the T Scheme and the market properly bed down. Then, as my honourable friend Patricia Hewitt made clear in another place:
"in 2004 we shall conduct an open review of how self-regulation is working".
I hope that, in the light of this explanation, I have persuaded the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
BaronessBuscombe: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
The Committee adjourned at two minutes past five o'clock.

  Refugees: NACAB Proposal
  Refugees: NACAB Proposal
  Interception of Communications
  Interception of Communications
  War Crimes: Definition
  War Crimes: Definition
  Blakenhurst: Request/Complaint Procedures
  Blakenhurst: Request/Complaint Procedures
  Cultural Diversity
  Cultural Diversity
  Demining
  Demining
  Army Transport Museum: Exhibits
  Army Transport Museum: Exhibits
  National Army Museum Chairman
  National Army Museum Chairman
  National Army Museum Vehicles
  National Army Museum Vehicles
  National Army Museum: Role North of Watford
  National Army Museum: Role North of Watford
  Sierra Leone and Congo: Use of Reserve Forces
  Sierra Leone and Congo: Use of Reserve Forces
  Disability Benefit Take-up
  Disability Benefit Take-up
  Greenwich Park: Car-parking Charges
  Greenwich Park: Car-parking Charges
  IACS: Field Margins
  IACS: Field Margins