Sitting of 15 March 2000

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

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By ORDER)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Wednesday 22 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Peace Process
    Mr. John McFall: If he will make a statement on the peace process in Northern Ireland. [113215]
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the current situation regarding the peace process. [113219]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): Following the Government's decision on 11 February to suspend the operation of the institutions so as to preserve them for restoration, I had useful discussions last week with the political parties in Northern Ireland and with the Irish Government. Those will continue in the United States over the next few days. I remain convinced that there is the will and the desire to see the Good Friday agreement implemented in full. We shall continue to do all that we can to achieve that in close co-operation with the Irish Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McFall: Does the Secretary of State agree that the transformation that has occurred in Northern Ireland over the past few years is solely down to the Good Friday agreement? In many instances, the people have been ahead of the politicians in realising that. Does he accept that no politician or political party has any copyright on the agreement, and that if there is to be any revision of it, that must be done through agreement, discussion and consensus between all the people and parties involved?
    Mr. Mandelson: The Good Friday agreement represents a potential sea-change in the fortunes of Northern Ireland. Despite all that has happened, we certainly cannot stand still. Indeed, no one can afford to
    282
    opt out. We are working to implement the agreement in all its aspects; large swathes of it—human rights, equality, policing, criminal justice and other matters—will continue to be implemented. We want to see the institutions resume their operation as quickly as possible, but that must be on the basis of cross-community participation.
    As I said, talks started last week and they will continue. We shall certainly not give up. We are deciding the future not of politicians in Northern Ireland, but of every family in Northern Ireland. That is why the process is so important and we shall spare no effort.
    Mr. Fabricant: The Secretary of State will know that Real IRA have acquired updated RPG7 rocket launchers from the Balkans, with other weapons. Is he also aware that some of the terrorists now being released have joined Real IRA? Will he not say that enough is enough? Until we see some decommissioning, no more political or terrorist prisoners should be released.
    Mr. Mandelson: I cannot confirm any of the information that the hon. Gentleman has given the House. Under the agreement, the continuation of early releases is linked to the maintenance of each paramilitary ceasefire. I will, of course, keep each ceasefire under regular and constant review.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Given the serious problems with the process, and given my question to the Secretary of State last month in which I urged the leader of the Ulster Unionist party to relax his 12 February deadline, will my right hon. Friend begin negotiations from the standpoint of having 22 May as the beginning of the decommissioning process rather than its end?
    Mr. Mandelson: I can certainly say firmly that no single party can unilaterally change what is in the agreement. Realistically, the prospects for achieving complete decommissioning by 22 May are poor. However, there are two extreme views as to the consequences if it is not achieved. Mr. Adams seems to be suggesting that we just forget about decommissioning. Others say that it must mean the end of the agreement altogether. Both views are wrong. Decommissioning will not go away; it remains an essential part of the peace process and of the Good Friday agreement. However, the only way to achieve decommissioning is through the full implementation of the agreement; that is what we shall continue to work on.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Has the Secretary of State seen this morning's press reports that Mr. Gerry Adams has said that there will be no political progress whatever in Washington this week, and that there will be no decommissioning of illegal armaments by 22 May this year, as required in the Belfast agreement? Accordingly, if that is correct, will the Assembly remain in suspension after 22 May? What will happen?
    Mr. Mandelson: No; I hope very much that the Assembly, the Executive and all the institutions will be reactivated long in advance of 22 May. It is imperative that that be achieved, so that the issue of decommissioning, in conjunction with that reactivation, can be settled one way or another to everyone's

    283
    satisfaction. Only in that way shall we be able to accommodate the deadline of 22 May—in the context of functioning institutions. Politics that works in Northern Ireland is the essential condition for progress.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: What is the Secretary of State's view of the Alliance party's six-point plan to break the deadlock in the peace process? It seems to me that some of the ideas are original and could be helpful.
    Mr. Mandelson: There is a lot of interest in those ideas. I had the opportunity to discuss the six-point plan with an Alliance party delegation who came to see me last week. The plan is positive and constructive, and it makes a good contribution to the current consultation of all parties. I have not heard what the other pro-agreement parties' view of the Alliance proposals is, but I shall look closely at any such measures that are able to generate cross-party confidence and support.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: All over the world Irish people and their friends are preparing to celebrate St. Patrick's day. Some will return from overseas to the island of Ireland to do so, apart from those who have been sent into exile by paramilitary groups. Is it not the case that the peace agreement will have delivered fully only when exiles can return to Ireland to join in the celebrations?
    Mr. Mandelson: I strongly echo my hon. Friend's remarks. Such exile is unacceptable, it must be reversed and we must create the conditions in which it is. Apart from the people to whom my hon. Friend referred, there are many young people who have left Northern Ireland because they have despaired of the inability to create lasting peace and prosperity and a half-decent future in which to bring up their families. I want all those young people to be exiles from Northern Ireland no longer; I want them to return, and I want them to be leaders in Northern Ireland. I do not want any more young people having to find their fortune and to bring up their families elsewhere. They should remain where they belong—with their families and friends in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: As the Secretary of State examines ways of taking the process forward at this difficult time, will he give the House a guarantee that any change in forces' levels in Northern Ireland will be a decision that he takes alone, and that it will be taken purely on security, and not political, grounds—and after consultation with the General Officer Commanding the Army and the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary?
    Mr. Mandelson: We all want to normalise security arrangements in Northern Ireland as soon as possible, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman shares that objective. Normalisation is not about making concessions and it is not about wishful thinking. It reflects precisely what is happening on the ground, the progress that we have made and the progress that we have yet to make. I pay tribute to the Garda and the Irish Army for their successes against dissidents. However, we have responsibility for security in Northern Ireland, and I shall listen to the Chief Constable's advice. He and the GOC will decide the troop
    284
    numbers that they need and where and how they want to deploy them. If they want to make changes, they will announce those changes, which will be made for good reasons, in their own time.
    Mr. MacKay: Is the Secretary of State aware that his answer will be gratefully received in Northern Ireland and among the armed forces, and with some surprise, not least because of the disgraceful remarks that he made on Irish television last week, when he described the Army as chinless wonders? I am sure that he now deeply regrets those remarks, so will he take this opportunity to apologise publicly to the Army, and more particularly to the families of soldiers who have lost their lives in Northern Ireland during the recent troubles?
    Mr. Mandelson: I have absolutely no hesitation in expressing again my regret for the remark that I made. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is, for his own political purposes, slightly egging the pudding, and he is being a little harsh. He will accept that all politicians are allowed the occasional gaffe, if only to remind the public that they are still human.
    Kali Mountford: Is not the Good Friday agreement not only the best agreement on offer but the only one? I would hope that it has the support of all Members of this place, and certainly that of the British people. Is not the best thing now for everybody to come together to support the agreement so that we can realise the hope that is offered by the agreement? Does my right hon. Friend agree that republicans and Unionists work together at many levels in government and throughout other institutions? Does that not offer real hope for success?
    Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Despite the understandable expressions of anger and some acrimony that followed the unfortunate but inevitable decision by the Government to suspend the institutions, people from different parties and different parts of the political spectrum are continuing to work extremely well throughout Northern Ireland, most notably in local government. We can get progress only with agreement on the part of Unionists, nationalists and republicans. That requires confidence on all sides, which was badly dented earlier this year. It is to restoring the confidence that all parties need to go forward that we are devoting our energies, and we shall continue to do so.

    Ministerial Posts
    Mr. William Thompson: What discussions he has had with the Prime Minister on the complement of his Department's Ministers since the suspension of the Northern Ireland Executive. [113216]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): No discussions have taken place with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the complement of Northern Ireland Office Ministers since suspension took place on 12 February.
    Mr. Thompson: Given the disarray and acrimony among the pro-agreement parties, surely it is unrealistic to imagine that there will be an early return to an Executive in

    285
    Northern Ireland. Surely the Secretary of State is burying his head in the sand to think so. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his view? It is unrealistic to expect two Ministers to cover 10 Departments in Northern Ireland. As it may be some time before an Executive is re-formed, surely we need extra Ministers to ensure that important decisions can be made and implemented and that we have the continuation of good government.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: He is looking for a job.
    Mr. Mandelson: I do not know whether that was an offer by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson).
    The decision of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not to reappoint additional Ministers reflects our desire to make the renewed period of direct rule as short as possible. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no local departmental matters will be neglected in the meantime. I hope that we can restart the institutions as soon as possible. They are certainly needed if we are to be successful in implementing the Good Friday agreement as a whole, and that is in the urgent interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the parties are continuing to talk round the table and the ceasefire remains intact, the two Governments are absolutely right in their determination to keep all possible avenues open so that parties can take the important extra step?
    Mr. Mandelson: Yes, that is very important, and it is particularly important that the two Governments continue to work closely together. We are working with them and in co-operation with the parties. The consultations that both Governments started and had with the parties last week will continue in Washington, as I have said, over St. Patrick's day. Next week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will meet to review what progress has been made, and I think that that is to be followed by an intensive period of activity prior to the Easter break.

    Employment
    Mr. Tony Colman: If he will make a statement on levels of employment in Northern Ireland. [113217]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Latest estimates derived from the labour force survey show that there were approximately 691,000 persons employed in Northern Ireland in the period November 1999 to January 2000.
    Mr. Colman: I thank the Minister for that information and congratulate him on his work in ensuring that unemployment has fallen steadily in Northern Ireland over the past three years. I commend the work of the Industrial Development Board, so ably chaired by Alan Gillespie. Does my hon. Friend share my amazement that the £400 million loan guarantee and the £38 million of intervention fund grants were described by Harland and Wolff management, in its tender for the Cunard liner, as too little, too late, and contrast that with the general
    286
    welcome that has been given by both sides of the House to the £500 million loan guarantee given to British Aerospace, which will result in many jobs?
    Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for making a good point. The scale of the offer to Harland and Wolff was unprecedented. It involved two Departments: the Department of Trade and Industry and the Northern Ireland Office. It is a matter of regret that the yard did not obtain the contract; if it had, future employment could have been guaranteed to some extent.
    I share my hon. Friend's amazement that the official Conservative spokesman on Northern Ireland has criticised the Government's actions. He represents a party that, in the 1980s, went out of its way to destroy the manufacturing sector throughout the United Kingdom and argued against any form of state intervention to support companies. We have shown our determination to save the yard and we shall continue to work to do so.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: In spite of the Minister's heavy load, he will be aware of the fears of Harland and Wolff's 1,700 employees and the many hundreds of others whose livelihood depends on continuous employment in the shipyard. Although the recent lack of success is disappointing, will he continue to work with management and trade unions to secure a future for Harland and Wolff and to save the shipyard from closure?
    Mr. Ingram: I met senior management of Harland and Wolff last Friday, after the announcement was made. I have offered to meet them again to discuss what assistance we can offer the company in bidding for future contracts, because we value the yard and the type and quality of work it brings to Northern Ireland's economy. I am due to meet unions to discuss their concerns. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Has the Minister had an opportunity to speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the possibility of the Ministry of Defence revising its timetable for placing orders and seeking quotes from various yards within the United Kingdom in respect of MOD contracts?
    Mr. Ingram: It is more appropriate that I first discuss in detail with the company the contracts for which it intends to bid. If it wants additional support from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and me in terms of making representations to other Departments, we stand ready to hear its requests and to make such representations.

    Decommissioning
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: What assessment he has made of when the decommissioning section of the Belfast agreement will be fully implemented. [113218]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, under the Good Friday agreement all parties are committed to working to achieve complete decommissioning by May 2000. In the context of the implementation of the overall settlement,

    287
    the obligation is on the paramilitaries to make clear how and when they will put their illegal arms fully and completely beyond use. They should do so without delay.
    Mr. Waterson: Can the Minister confirm the parliamentary answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), to the effect that since the Good Friday agreement more than 2,400 injuries and 49 deaths have been inflicted by terrorists in Northern Ireland? Does not that underline the importance of making no more significant concessions to Sinn Fein until there is meaningful and verifiable decommissioning?
    Mr. Howarth: Of course any violence is to be deplored and no member of the Government would apologise on behalf of any party involved in violence. We will behave toward such parties in the appropriate way. However, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that our actions should not be regarded as concessions; they are all part of the Good Friday agreement. It is not true to say that we are making concessions. What we are doing is delivering on the obligations that we and all the other parties made when we signed up to the Good Friday agreement.
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the Minister join me in deploring the fact that not one of his colleagues on the Government side of the House seems interested in decommissioning, or has asked a question on that issue? Will he confirm that he and the Secretary of State still consider decommissioning an essential part of the Belfast agreement, and that they will not be beguiled by the unilateral dissent from the 22 May date demonstrated by the junior Minister at the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin? Can the Minister—[interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not want to hear about decommissioning. Has the Secretary of State obtained an answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)? Does the IRA intend to disarm, and if so, when?
    Mr. Howarth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time, but if he was, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealing earlier with questions from both sides of the House on the subject of decommissioning. And a few moments ago, I dealt directly with a question on decommissioning from an Opposition Member. With all the respect that I can summon for the hon. Gentleman, I conclude that he was not listening, or he chose to ignore what took place earlier.
    My right hon. Friend, Ministers from the Republic of Ireland and I are working hard to ensure that all the important aspects of the Good Friday agreement, including decommissioning, are met in a way that is acceptable within the terms of the agreement. That is what my right hon. Friend said, and I repeat it. I do not know what more I can say to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, except that I know that he agrees with us on that point.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State said earlier that decommissioning could take place only in the context of the overall implementation of the agreement? Are they
    288
    both aware that that is an exact repetition of the IRA demand made in its statement to General de Chastelain in February this year?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to work into his question and our answer some sort of collusion that does not exist. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given a proper assessment of the situation as regards decommissioning, in the context of the Good Friday agreement. To seek to misinterpret or reinterpret that is nothing short of mischievous. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to be mischievous, that is his prerogative. We are seeking to bring about peace, and I am sure the entire House would agree that that is the right thing to do.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Will the Minister give an assurance to the House this afternoon that the Executive will not be reconvened until there has been a serious start on decommissioning?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware of the fact that we are seriously engaged with our colleagues from Ireland and all the other parties that signed up to the agreement in trying to get the process back on track. I shall not second-guess where those discussions will lead. However, we are seeking to deliver every part of the Good Friday agreement, which includes obligations on decommissioning.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: May I press the Minister further? What evidence is there that there will be any decommissioning before 22 May?
    Mr. Howarth: At the moment, there is no evidence that decommissioning will be completed—or even started—by 22 May. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be involved in discussions with the Taoiseach next week, and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met our Irish colleagues and representatives of the political parties last week. We are trying to deliver the Good Friday agreement in full. We shall continue to pursue that objective.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Simon Burns: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Burns: Does the Prime Minister agree that the incidence of beggars in the street caused by economic migration to this country is an affront? Will he answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) asked him two weeks ago: why do

    289
    council tax payers have to pick up the bill for the mess in the Home Office, which deals with a record number of bogus asylum seekers who come here because the Government's policy has made the country a soft touch for economic migrants?
    The Prime Minister: First, we are making available up to £10 million of extra special grants to support local authorities this year. As for the rules on asylum, they were introduced by the Conservative Government. In the teeth of Conservative opposition, this Government are changing the asylum rules so that from 3 April proper asylum measures will be in place for the first time, no thanks to the Conservative party.
    :Mr. Richard Burden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people throughout the west midlands and all areas that depend on the Rover group are holding their collective breath this afternoon as reports come from Germany? Does he agree that it is intolerable that people should hear about further threats to their livelihoods from a newspaper leak in south Germany? Does he also agree that BMW and the Government agreed an aid package on the basis of BMW's long-term commitment to the Rover group and that BMW should remember that in its board meeting tomorrow, and keep faith with the many thousands of people throughout the country who have kept faith with them over the years? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to safeguard jobs in that vital manufacturing industry?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have made it clear that we have been willing to back BMW's plans with Government support. That has been made clear repeatedly in the past few months, and was reiterated today. We are in close touch with the company. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spoke to the chairman of Rover today; he will also speak to the BMW chairman. He has made clear the enormous strategic importance that we attach to safeguarding Rover's future. We shall do everything we can, including making good our offer of support, to safeguard the future of the plant.
    Mr. William Hague: Before the election, the Prime Minister promised that he had no plans to increase tax. Yesterday, his press secretary—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Less noise down there.
    Mr. Hague: Yesterday, the Prime Minister's press secretary said that the Government had increased taxes. In that new spirit of honesty, will the Prime Minister admit that Labour's promises on taxes at the election were a total, barefaced election lie?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly will not. We promised that we would not raise the basic, standard or higher rate of tax, and we kept that promise. For the first two years, the Government's duty was to cut the huge deficit that we inherited. However, this financial year, the tax burden falls; that will happen again next year. Future years depend on Budget decisions. No risks will—or should—be taken with the strength and stability of the economy.
    290
    We inherited a national debt that had doubled and a borrowing requirement of £28 billion. When we came to office, we were paying more in interest payments on the debt under Tory plans than we were spending on the whole school system. I make no apology for saying that we cut the budget deficit in our first two years. We were right to do that.
    Mr. Hague: Well, the Prime Minister has obviously forgotten what he said. He said he had
    no plans to increase tax at all.
    Was that just a joke or another rib tickler from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, launched upon the country? Let me remind him that he said:
    our proposals do not involve raising taxes.
    That was in August 1996. He said:
    we want people to pay lower taxes.
    That was September 1996. He said:
    the programme of the Labour Party does not imply any tax increases.
    That was January 1997. He said:
    The entire Tory case that there is a … hidden agenda … of tax increases is simply untrue.
    That was April 1997. So it was not a joke; it was systematic, dishonest and deliberately misleading. Yesterday, his press secretary admitted that the tax burden had risen, so will he now admit that he has broken that whole long list of promises?
    The Prime Minister: Not at all.
    An hon. Member: He is a liar.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Where did that come from? Where did that come from? [Interruption.] Order. I see that no one is going to own up, but I distinctly heard it.
    The Prime Minister: This quote—
    our principle to establish sound public finances comes first—[Official Report, 25 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 170.]
    is from the right hon. Gentleman's shadow Chancellor, when he was dealing with the last Tory deficit. For the first two years we had to get rid of the budget deficit. As a result of those measures, and I make no apology for them, the tax burden is falling this year and will fall again next year. Look at the result of the policy: for the first time in decades, the economy has slowed without a recession; debt repayments are £4 billion less this year—money that goes to public services; interest rates are half what they were for years under the Tories; and there are 800,000 more jobs, higher living standards and more take-home pay. Yes, we are proud of our economic record.
    Mr. Hague: And the Prime Minister still will not admit what is clearly true: he has broken that whole long list of election promises. Now that he is letting his press secretary speak on the record, he will have to get used to this problem because we can see that his answers are less honest than those of his press secretary. "Less honest than Alastair Campbell" are not words that any of us want on our tombstones. His Government have increased taxes on mortgages and marriages, petrol and pensions, savers and self-employed, large businesses and small, air travel and

    291
    insurance, and home buying and charities. The result is not only that taxes have gone up, but that they are continuing to rise. Will he admit not only that he has broken his promise not to raise taxation, but that he is continuing to break that promise?
    The Prime Minister: No. The figures are 36.5 per cent. for 1997–98 and 37.4 per cent. for 1998–99, falling to 37 per cent. this year and 36.8 per cent. next year. I also have the figures that the right hon. Gentleman agreed to when a member of the Cabinet in 1996. I think the House should hear them: 36.3 per cent. in 1997–98, 36.6 per cent. in 1998–99, and 37.1 per cent. and then 37.6 per cent. We can simply look at the Tory record. If it is immoral to raise taxes ever, then the last Tory Government were immoral, were they? I have looked at the record under Margaret Thatcher. The tax burden rose by 3 per cent. Was she immoral? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I am sorry to say that about someone who I know means so much to the right hon. Gentleman, but we do not have to look at the last Tory record. Let us look at the last two years of the Tory Government, when he was a Cabinet Minister. The tax burden went up a full 2 per cent. Was he immoral?
    Mr. Hague: Let us have a look. Everything that the Prime Minister has said is based on the Chancellor's way of calculating the tax take.
    PricewaterhouseCoopers, one of the largest accounting firms in the world, says that the Government's figures are a less accurate indicator, because they involve reclassifying items in the middle of the period. That is polite accountant-speak for a barefaced election lie, which is what we were talking about at the beginning. The figures also show that the tax burden will continue to rise from this year to next year, from next year to the year after and so on, until the last possible date for a general election.
    Is it not now clear from all independent sources that the Prime Minister has broken his promises, and is continuing to break them?
    The Prime Minister: No. The PricewaterhouseCoopers figures exclude the working families tax credit as a tax cut; if it is added, the figures are as I said.
    What is the right hon. Gentleman's policy? His policy is the Tory tax guarantee. That was tried before, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and what did it give us? Interest rates went through the roof, 1 million jobs were lost in manufacturing alone, there was record borrowing and recession; and then what? Twenty-two Tory tax rises.
    Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was the moral duty of Government always to cut taxes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]. Hon. Members say "Hear, hear"; I say that a return to boom and bust is not moral. What is moral about 3 million unemployed? What is moral about 1 million small businesses going to the wall? What is moral about 1 million homes being repossessed? What is moral about 4 million children living in poverty that we inherited?
    We know Tory morality: tax cuts for a few at the top, and boom and bust for the rest of us.
    Mr. Hague: What is moral about breaking every promise on taxation, and delivering worse public services at the same time? Let us have an answer now: does the Prime Minister admit that he has broken all those promises? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
    292
    Development says that Britain has the fastest-rising tax burden in the developed world. The Institute of Fiscal Studies says that
    there is no question that UK taxes are rising.
    So do the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Fabian Society. [Interruption.] Even the Fabian Society. The Prime Minister should pays more attention to his heartland. [Interruption.] We know that Labour Members do not want to hear about what they have done—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order in the House, on both sides.
    Mr. Hague: Every independent organisation agrees that the tax burden is continuing to rise. No independent organisation accepts the figures that the Prime Minister just gave, because there is no institute of manipulation and broken promises.
    Let us ask the Prime Minister the question for the fifth time. Is it not clear that he has broken all his promises on taxation?
    The Prime Minister: No. The promise that we made about the basic, standard and higher rates of income tax has been kept, and rightly too; but we do not, I repeat, make any apologies for having got rid of the budget deficit in our first two years. Surely what the country needs above all else economically is stability and strength, and surely, when there are more jobs, higher living standards, more take-home pay and greater stability in the economy than we have had for years, that is the right test of an economic policy. If we went back down the road proposed by the right hon. Gentleman—massive tax cuts, at the same time as promises of extra spending—we would end up with cuts in public spending, increased taxes, and boom and bust. That is the truth.
    Mr. Hague: We would not end up with those things. Of course we would not. What about saving the hundreds of millions of pounds that are being spent on asylum seekers because the right hon. Gentleman has made this country a soft touch? What about saving tens of millions of pounds on preparing for the euro, when people do not want to join the euro? What about saving the extra £1,000 million that the right hon. Gentleman has spent on running Whitehall? What about saving on the welfare budget, which has run out of control while we have proposed savings of £3 billion?
    Is it not clear that the right hon. Gentleman's promises have been systematically, deliberately and endlessly broken, and is it not clear that this is the Government who tax more and deliver less?
    The Prime Minister: As for that last rant, let me first deal with the welfare position. Under this Government, the welfare bills on social and economic failure are £4 billion down as a result of the new deal. On welfare spending, even if the working families tax credit, the increased child benefit and the extra money for pensioners, which the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to, are included in that—let me give him the figures—it is a 1 per cent. real-terms increase over this Parliament. When he was in office, it was a 4 per cent. real-terms increase, so contrast that with the idea that he will get all this money out of the welfare budget.

    293
    As for asylum, the right hon. Gentleman's party opposed the measure that we are introducing from this April to replace the benefits for everyone with a tougher, tighter system. The Tory proposals on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which the shadow Home Secretary tabled, would have added £500 million to the bill, so, next time he engages in some economic debate, let him get his facts right.
    Angela Smith: The Prime Minister will be aware that many Labour Members take every opportunity to lobby him for extra resources for our constituencies, particularly in health and education. Has he received any representations from Conservative Members for cuts in services in their constituencies, given their tax guarantee? Does he believe that we can spend more if we are getting less in?
    The Prime Minister: I should inform the House of the latest stage of the Conservatives' thinking. What they now desire to do is not just to oppose the extra money on schools and hospitals as reckless and irresponsible; they are now saying that they are going to savage the welfare budget. But the part of the welfare budget that they will savage is the extra £100 for pensioners, the extra child benefit, the working families tax credit and the new deal. We will expose it day in, day out before the election.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: The House is rightly concerned about possible overheating of the economy, but we should be much more concerned about the clear overheating of the leader of the Tory party. Will the Prime Minister resist the Conservative-led endeavours to get into a Dutch auction about tax? Will he take this opportunity to confirm that it remains his commitment and his ambition to get our health service spending—what people really care about out there—up to European levels sooner rather than later?
    The Prime Minister: We want to ensure that proper funds go into the national health service. We want, too, to ensure that hard-working families get the benefit of saving as much of their income as they can, which is why we have the basic rate income tax cut, but taxes should be cut consistent only with the proper management of the economy. Of course, that is the case.
    Mr. Kennedy: At a time when we are seeing cardiac operations postponed, insufficient provision in intensive care, and the health service not meeting the aspirations that it felt it could attain under a new Labour Government, should not the priority for the Chancellor and the Prime Minister be further investment sooner rather than later, rather than a tax cut next month, which all evidence of public opinion shows people do not want as the public priority?
    The Prime Minister: It is, of course, important to get the investment in the health service, but I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that we are already putting a substantial amount of extra investment into the health service. This is, after all, the first year of significant additional increases in health spending. For the first two years, for the very reason that I was giving earlier, we had to ensure that we brought the public finances under control, but we need to ensure that we get that extra investment—and we are. That is the very
    294
    reason why we now have 4,000 new nurses in the national health service and why all the accident and emergency departments are being renovated.
    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned heart disease. There are problems in cardiac and cancer specialties. They can be cured only by more specialist staff, more intensive care beds and more consultants. We are investing in all three of those, but it does take time. This year, for example, we will have another 70 cardiac specialists coming on stream. In the years following, we will have even more than that, but it has to be done step by step, obviously, as a result of the problems that we inherited and as a result of the time that it takes to train people.
    Mr. Tom Levitt: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to express the House's gratitude to the members of the disability rights task force for the excellent work they have carried out over two and a half years? Does he have a message today for the newly appointed members of the Disability Rights Commission, who start their work next month?
    The Prime Minister: We are proud of the work that will be undertaken by the Disability Rights Commission. I am sure that it will do an excellent job. That was a manifesto commitment, and we have fulfilled it. I am delighted to see that it has so much support everywhere in the country.
    Mr. John Bercow:Given that there are now over 48,000 school classes with 31 or more pupils and that the number of secondary school classes with 36 or more pupils has more than doubled since he took office, should the Prime Minister's election slogan have been not "education, education, education", but "humbug, humbug, humbug"?
    The Prime Minister: There are 300,000 five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of fewer than 30 pupils who were not in classes of fewer than 30 pupils during the time of the previous Government. The reason for that is simple: we took the measures necessary to reduce class sizes and we made the necessary investment. The hon. Gentleman opposed that investment. The truth is that we can get class sizes down only if we make the additional investment in the system. We are making that investment and the hon. Gentleman's party is opposing it.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: One of the things that is wrong with the Leader of the Opposition is that he gives slapheads a bad name. I have a possible untapped tax suggestion for the Prime Minister, which could be developed. The exchange of goods and services throughout the world accounts for only a small amount of the money that changes hands. Most money is involved in currency speculation. If there were to be an internationally led tax on currency speculation, it would raise millions of pounds that could be used in Mozambique and other areas to tackle problems in the third world. Will our Government take a lead to see that that is on the agenda, because it needs to be done, not just by this Government but by other Governments and financial centres?
    The Prime Minister: That is an interesting suggestion. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have paid close attention to it. The best way to help the developing world is through the cancellation of debt. I am proud of the fact that our Chancellor and our Secretary of State for International Development have led the way on that. The Government are also increasing the aid and development budget, which means that millions of people throughout the world are feeling the benefit of our policies. I have a feeling that, although we will pay careful attention to my hon. Friend's suggestion, we will continue with our policy.
    Mr. Andrew George: In welcoming the lobby here today, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that our dairy farmers are the best and most efficient in Europe, but have suffered the costs of gross negligence because of the Tory handling of BSE and the lowest prices in Europe as a result of the Government's failure to protect them from the larger processors and supermarkets? Does the Prime Minister really believe that 8p a pint for our dairy farmers is enough for them to survive? If not, what action will he take?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, on 30 March I have a meeting with representatives of the National Farmers Union and representatives of farmers in every part of the United Kingdom. We will see what measures we can take to help the dairy industry and other sectors, such as the pig industry, that are experiencing real difficulties. As I have said constantly, there is a limit to the amount of public subsidy we can provide. We are putting in a significant amount of money. We understand that the position has worsened recently, particularly for the dairy sector, and we will do what we can. I will say no more before the meeting on 30 March. We are aware of the problems, but we need long-term solutions as well as solutions to get them over a short-term crisis.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will my right hon. Friend forgive me if I tell him very bluntly, man to man, that—[Interruption.] Yes, I have been waiting years to tell my right hon. Friend this, whether he likes it or not. Does he know that, in my constituency, 4,200 Airbus workers are cheering the Government's decision to pay £530 million into the Airbus project, which will create 1,400 jobs in my constituency?
    May I also tell my right hon. Friend that, among the work force, there is just a little perplexity that there seems to be some tardiness by the Welsh Assembly in its apparent inability to pay just £25 million in grant? Will he address that issue, send for the First Secretary—[Interruption.] Thank you very much for the £530 million.
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly use my renowned influence with the Welsh Assembly to make the points that my right hon. Friend has just made. It is a very important investment, which will not only bring jobs, but safeguard a large part of the United Kingdom's technological and skill base.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: May I turn the Prime Minister's attention to the morality
    296
    of the taxation of employee benefits? For example, does he think that, when he paid for his nanny and butler to go to the south of France—for their first-class airfare and their holiday at the flat of the then Paymaster General—it was fair that the taxation liability for that holiday should have fallen on the nanny and the butler, rather than on him as their employer?
    The Prime Minister: That is about the level of today's Conservative party. I do not know what nonsense there is about me having a butler—thank you very much—but, if the hon. Gentleman has any complaint—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Hayes, it is not your turn to ask questions.
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has any complaint, he can take it to the appropriate authority. I should have thought that, when he had the chance to ask a question of the Prime Minister, he might have thought of a better one.
    Mr. John McFall: Now that the £28 billion inherited public deficit has been eliminated, does the Prime Minister agree that it is a cause of optimism that, this year, economically, we have decreasing unemployment, stable prices and economic growth? Does he agree that a strong economy is needed to deliver a social justice agenda, for stronger public services, and for improvements for the poor and disadvantaged in our society? At the core of it, at the next general election, is not the real moral choice between a Government who care for a social justice agenda and an Opposition who, 20 years ago, threw such an agenda overboard?
    The Prime Minister: It is important not only that we have rising prosperity in the British economy, which we have, but also that that prosperity is extended to everyone. That is the difference between the two sides. It could be no more clearly demonstrated than in the new deal, a policy that has delivered literally 200,000 people in unsubsidised jobs. The Conservatives consigned those 200,000 people to the scrap heap. Under new Labour, those people have been given choice and opportunity. That is the difference in the moral values between the two parties.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Having declared my interest in livestock, I have also readily taken the advice of my friends to look after my day job. Does the Prime Minister accept reports that, compared with their Great Britain counterparts, Northern Ireland farmers have fared disproportionately badly, sustaining a 79 per cent. drop in income since 1995, compared with a 60 per cent. drop in Great Britain? Will he give us an assurance that he will urgently consider the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Select Committee on the current problems in the livestock industry, and seek Treasury support to bring relief urgently?
    The Prime Minister: Farmers in Northern Ireland will be represented at the 30 March meeting that I mentioned a

    297
    moment ago. The problem that the farming industry has had, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, has been a combination, obviously, of the strong pound, which has caused problems, plus the leftover from the BSE crisis, which has hit not only the beef sector, but other sectors. We will do what we can in the short term to help the industry, and we have already drawn down very considerable sums to do that. However, it must be tied to a long-term strategy for the future health of the industry. The farmers that I meet do not want to be dependent on subsidy. They have a good business and they are working extremely hard. Our
    298
    agricultural produce is probably the finest anywhere in the world. We have to make sure that farmers live within a long-term strategy that gives them a viable future.
    Madam Speaker: Thank you. Time is up.
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: There can be no points of order until after the statement.

Selection in Education
3.30 pm
Mrs. Theresa May(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to clarify the Government's position on selection in education following their defeat in the House of Lords yesterday on amendment No. 138A to the Learning and Skills Bill.
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I am happy to repeat the Government's position on grammar schools. We have said on a number of occasions that we have no intention of changing the status of grammar schools unless parents wish it. I am happy to repeat that commitment today.
The policy that we set out in 1995 and in our manifesto in 1997 indicated that we would leave the decision on grammar schools to parents and that they would continue with the 11-plus only if parents wished it. Our position remains the same today. In that agreed policy statement, we were clear that we were not in favour of the 11-plus; nor were we in favour of tackling grammar schools without parents being involved. That was agreed by both Houses of Parliament and was affirmed in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
Last night, my noble Friend the Minister for Education and Employment confirmed that position and indicated that the House of Commons would seek to reverse the Lords amendment. I repeat that commitment today—we shall seek to overturn that amendment when the Learning and Skills Bill comes before the Commons.
We fully respect the vote of parents in Ripon, but we find it extraordinary that from one ballot in one grammar school, one should argue that all other ballots should be overturned and the rights of parents denied. If that were the case, a by-election would determine the results of the following general election. Had that been the case, the Conservative party would have lasted less than two years in government after 1979.
While the Opposition continue to run the debate of a bygone era, we are determined to focus our policies on the needs of all children in 24,000 schools and 4,000 secondary schools, on lifting standards and achievements for all. The Government have already significantly extended the diversity and the excellence of the education available to pupils throughout the country. There are now nearly 500 specialist schools and there will be 250 beacon schools by the end of this year. We have brought into the new voluntary-aided sector independent schools, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh schools. The excellence in cities programme, which affects London and five other major areas, has been spreading excellence for all children in all major urban centres. We have been ready to tackle failure wherever it exists. As a party, we are opposed to simply sitting on our hands, as the Opposition did when in government, rather than taking decisive action against failure.
The result of the failure is that children are denied a decent education in whichever school. That is why, through our actions, we have been able to reduce the time that it takes to turn around schools subject to special measures from 25 to 17 months during our time in office.
300
We can learn from the past and from existing policy, including the fresh start measures that have been taken over the past 18 months. Today, I can tell the House that we are inviting promoters from the voluntary, religious and business sectors to make proposals to take over weak or failing schools or to replace them with city academies where existing measures to overcome failure have been unsuccessful.
The promoters of academies will have to have plans for improving the education of all the pupils attending the school or schools. We will use existing legislative powers to establish the academies. They will be built and managed by partnerships involving the Government and the voluntary, Church or business sectors. Over the next year, we intend to launch at least one new academy and we will pilot others over the next few years.
We will look for imaginative proposals and new potential for such schools. The aim will always be to improve pupil performance by breaking the cycle of disadvantage and low expectation. Promoters will use different approaches. They will have to fit in with the framework of our admissions code, but they will be able to make imaginative proposals for the schools' management, governance, teaching and curriculum. We will expect at least one specialist focus and, as with other specialist schools, we will expect that focus to be shared with the wider community of schools in the area.
Yes, we will leave the decision on grammar schools to parents, but no, we will not leave failure where it exists in our communities. Unlike the Conservatives, we will take decisive action to change standards, not structures.
The confusion of Conservative Members is illustrated by the statements of their spokesperson in the Lords last night, who tabled an amendment, which did not succeed, to expand grammar schools. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), in the Times Educational Supplement on 1 October 1999, said:
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.
There is not a groundswell in favour of further selection. There is a groundswell in favour of raising standards for all children, whichever school they go to. When they had the chance to prove what they could do with our education system, the Conservatives failed.
Our task is to ensure that we have equality of opportunity and fulfil the potential of all individual children and schools, not with rigid uniformity but with diversity designed to bring excellence. That is why I am willing to leave the decision on existing grammar schools to parents and why I am ensuring that all our attention and our policies and focus are on raising standards for all our children.
Mrs. May: At the weekend, the Secretary of State said that
arguments about selection are a past agenda
and that he was not "hunting grammar schools". Does he accept that those words will ring hollow with teachers and parents of children in grammar schools when they hear his intention to put their schools under threat once again?
Contrary to those statements at the weekend, the Secretary of State has confirmed that he is against the 11-plus. Does he not accept that there are many activists

301
campaigning against grammar schools who will see that as a sign, egging them on to continue their vendetta? What is his view on the use of any form of selection in education? Does he not accept that, by seeking to reverse the decision to abolish grammar school ballots, he is prolonging the uncertainty for the country's remaining grammar schools?
Does the Secretary of State realise that his decision will hit especially hard in areas where anti-grammar school campaigners have been active—such as in Barnet or at Latymer school in Enfield—where the grammar schools woke up this morning free from the threat of abolition but now face months of uncertainty until the Learning and Skills Bill has completed its passage through Parliament? If he is really interested in raising standards, why does not he remove the legislative death threat from the grammar schools and let them get on with the job of delivering excellence in education?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the city academies that he announced to the press yesterday and has spoken of today will have freedom over their admissions policies and will be free to select by examination and/or interview? Will he also confirm that that would lead to further selection compared to the position in 1995? That was when he told the Labour party conference
no selection by examination or interview under a Labour Government.
At the weekend, the Secretary of State said that that statement was a joke. Does not he accept that it was not a joke then for parents, children or staff involved in grammar schools or for those who aspire to go to grammar schools, and it is not a joke today? Because the Secretary of State spins his message according to his audience, parents now know that they can have no faith in what he says. His claims at the weekend that he supported the grammar schools were simply another example of a Government who say one thing and do another.
Mr. Blunkett: I support excellence wherever it is. The idea that parents are a threat to grammar schools is an insult to parents who have the ballot. One cannot, as the hon. Lady and her colleagues did at the weekend, parade the glory of winning a ballot in Ripon, and then tell parents elsewhere that they should be denied the right to ballot. The hon. Lady cannot parade democracy when the result is in her favour and fear it when it is against her. Democracy involves winning and losing, and giving people the ability to make a choice is an essential part of democracy.
Had we taken action to remove the selective system in Ripon from the centre, there would have been an outcry demanding to know whether we had the legitimate right to second-guess the wish of parents. We did not do that; we gave parents the right to decide for themselves, as we will elsewhere.
Admissions policies will be within the code that we have laid down and on which the House voted. It is important that the action which is taken to improve and overcome failure deals with the children who are in that position. Anyone can improve a school if they reject all the pupils and then select them on an entirely different basis. That is why we have not engaged with the past agenda about structure or selection but concentrated all our efforts on raising standards.
302
For those whose memories stretch back as far as 1995—for journalists who have left school since then and for ageing, beloved politicians who have campaigned from that October day to this against what I said—of course "Watch my lips" was a parody. The difference is that after the level 2, level 3 and level 4 achievements in primary school, even an 11-year-old will know the difference between a parody and a joke about a speech. The parody was a parody of someone else's words, at which the conference laughed. The selection policy that was laid out in the manifesto and was contained in the document that was voted on that day was far from a joke, and that policy has been carried out faithfully for four and half years by me and my colleagues.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: Does not my right hon. Friend think that there is something very sad about the Conservatives' obsession with the grammar school ballot issue when 95 per cent. of our children are not educated in that system? Does he accept that when I speak to teachers, parents and children in Blackpool, they are concerned about issues such as the raising of standards, the success of the literacy and numeracy hours, the family learning centres and all the other initiatives that the Government have introduced, not the paranoid obsessions of the Conservatives?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As more children reach level 4 at the age of 11, the anachronism of selection will become apparent to everybody.
Mr. Phil Willis: Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a sad occasion? Even though we have had a social exclusion report, "Bridging the Gap", which said that 9 per cent. of our young people leave school with no qualifications, no hope and no future, we spend our time on an obsession with the 4.5 per cent. of our youngsters who are in grammar schools. That is the real disgrace of what is happening today. Does the Secretary of State agree that, between 1979 and 1997 under the previous Administration, there was a net loss of 96 grammar schools? In fact, roughly one grammar school out of every three or four disappeared, without arousing much protest from Conservative Members,
However, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are serious flaws in the current ballot arrangements? For example, one in four of those eligible to vote in Ripon had put their children in private schools. The children in the grammar school were denied a vote. No full explanation was ever offered of what would happen when the grammar school was abolished, and the local education authority was not allowed to put in place the organisational structure needed to pick up the pieces if the grammar school had been abolished.
Is the Secretary of State prepared to do more than overturn the Lords amendment? Should not he give serious consideration to the question of ballots, and to the idea that LEAs should be responsible for all schools and admission arrangements in their areas?
Mr. Blunkett: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point about the number of grammar schools for which selection was abolished by the previous Government. I have travelled the country over the past

303
three years, but, as yet, have not come across any local campaign to bring back selection where it has been abolished.
I am not prepared to reopen consideration of the ballot question. When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) attended the preparatory schools conference just before the last general election, he committed the Labour party to including those of primary age who were in the private school sector. He did so because he thought it right that parents with children in any school that had a direct feed into an area's grammar schools should be part of the total picture. It would be wrong to consider reopening that debate now. Those who are engaged in seeking the petition for a ballot should be allowed to progress under the existing rules.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I urge my right hon. Friend to continue his pursuit of a vision of diversity and excellence? He should not be distracted by a petty squabble whipped up by Conservative Members about the 4.5 per cent. of the population who are obsessed with grammar schools. Nor should he be distracted by the hypocrisy of Conservative Members, given that the previous Conservative Government got rid of one grammar school in three.
Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at diversity in the new academies and specialist schools, and ensure that they reach out to other schools in their areas? The city technology colleges were set up by the previous Government, but they failed to share their excellence and their mission, just as they failed to spread good teaching throughout their communities.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's new initiatives. He must make sure that they enthuse the rest of the teaching community and benefit every child in every school.
Mr. Blunkett: I agree with my hon. Friend. The provisions covering specialist schools specifically require that a third of the additional resources are used in work with neighbouring schools and the wider community. The original 15 technology colleges have been warmly welcomed and have sought actively to collaborate with schools and the wider community in their areas.
Mr. David Curry: If the Ripon parents had voted in favour of reorganisation, that decision would have been irrevocable, even though—because they were not consulted—they would not have known what form the reorganisation would have taken. However, the parents voted against reorganisation. Should not that decision also be irrevocable? Is it fair to schools that they should face another five years of uncertainty, and all the difficulties that that will cause for pupils, parents and teachers—and to the very head teachers whom the Secretary of State wants to fulfil a leadership role? Should not a decision reached by ballot decide a matter once and for all?
Mr. Blunkett: I take very seriously what the right hon. Gentleman says. There will be no threat to the school in the next five years. The outcome in Ripon was decisive, and people will take note of that. However, I would take his question more seriously if, under the balloting
304
arrangements for grant-maintained schools, there had been any provision for the next generation of parents and children to have any say in the status of those schools. The Conservative party turned parent against parent, teacher against teacher and school against school, and the parents of the generation of children about to enter the school, or whose children had an expectation of going to the school, had no chance of a say in its status.
Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Secretary of State accept that if all our children are to have the opportunity to develop all the skill, talent and creativity at their disposal, we need to abolish the 11-plus and grammar schools? Unless we have the courage to do that, our youngsters will still lose out, and many of them will be written off at the grand old age of 11.
Mr. Blunkett: There are parts of the country where the traditional 11-plus continues across the authority. That causes undoubted difficulties for secondary modern schools in achieving the kind of levels that they wish for their pupils. I commend them for the work that they are doing.
One thing was absolutely certain to us in October 1995. If we were elected, we would be diverted into spending all our time dealing with a very small number of schools in a very small number of areas, rather than dealing with standards and overcoming failure. That is why we took the decision to ensure that parents had the democratic right to decide and that Ministers did not spend all their time dealing with a handful of schools.
Mr. Graham Brady: First, I congratulate the Secretary of State on his city academies initiative. I hope that that will open the way to cities such as Manchester having a new tradition of grammar schools that will be open to all pupils, regardless of their parents' ability to pay.
Secondly, in relation to last night's amendment in the Lords, if the right hon. Gentleman insists on using the Government's Commons majority to override that decision, will he at least take another look at the ballot regulations? Will he remove the rigged ballot question that favours those who want to abolish the grammar schools, and ensure that the question refers instead to losing grammar schools? The Government should not use a rigged, fudged question to try to con parents so that they do not know what they are voting for.
Mr. Blunkett: That is a real insult to the parents in Ripon. They seemed well aware of what they were voting on. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that they were not, he is insulting their intelligence. He says that I rigged the ballot one way, while Lord Hattersley says that I rigged it the other way. Somewhere in between lies rational common sense and a reasonable way forward.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I very much welcome Manchester grammar school coming back into the public sector. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who represents the constituency that the school is in, has rightly pointed out that there are thousands of deprived youngsters around that school who would benefit greatly if its admissions policy enabled them to enter, rather than those living in Cheshire and beyond.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I remind

305
him that, before the election, the people of my constituency voted three times in local ballots, at the behest of Tory-controlled Buckinghamshire county council which was attempting to impose a grammar school on the people of Milton Keynes. That grammar school was rejected three times by the people of Milton Keynes, yet Buckinghamshire county council persisted, with the Conservative Government, in trying to force that school on a community that did not want it. It was this Government who finally went along with the wishes of the local people. Does not that demonstrate the Conservative party's lack of commitment when it comes to listening to parents, except when they say what it wishes them to say?
Since that grammar school proposal was finally killed, the quality of education in Milton Keynes overall has improved because teachers, the local council and the Government can concentrate on providing an excellent education for all children without the divisiveness that was forced on them by the Tory county council.
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I agree. That shows the sheer, naked opportunism of the amendment last night in the other place and of the private notice question this afternoon.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Everyone seems to be criticising the Secretary of State. Is he aware that in Southend-on-Sea we have no fear of democracy. We have a unique system, with 25 per cent. of our children going to grammar schools and getting opportunities that they would not otherwise have? We have gained the clear impression that the right hon. Gentleman has become more understanding and positive about our situation. Bearing in mind the fact that our unique 25 per cent. system produces results for all children in all areas and provides opportunity, is he willing to come to Southend to visit one of the schools? May I assure him that he would get a great welcome?
Mr. Blunkett: How could anyone refuse such a warm embrace? Certainly not my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, who was in Southend last week to celebrate the education action zone. We wish those in Southend well, as we wish the top 25 per cent. well throughout the country in comprehensive schools who get five or more A to C grades.
Mr. Ben Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for proof that the Government are about standards rather than structures, he need look no further than the grammar schools on the Wirral, which provide
306
an excellent standard of education? Does he also understand that this is not a matter for exclusivity? Excellence can sit alongside excellence and does so in the Wirral in the form of, for example, Bebington and South Wirral high schools and Plessington Roman Catholic high school.
Mr. Blunkett: When my hon. Friend was elected, I was pleased to be in his constituency at Wirral grammar school for girls, particularly as it was when the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who was then an Education Minister, was trying to break in through the gate and was being ejected by the governors and staff. I repeat what I said then: we welcome excellence in those schools and their willingness to share what they are doing with the wider community.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If the Secretary of State is serious about his project for city academies, will he accept my invitation to visit Guildford, where a private sector company founded by a city technology college is turning around a failing school, which our Conservative local education authority inherited from its Lib-Lab predecessor? Will he accept my regrets that it has taken him two years to understand what I have been telling him—that Conservative policies on failing and inner-city schools are the best for Guildford and for Britain?
Mr. Blunkett: I think that one has to have had different experiences to describe Guildford as the inner city, but nevertheless, as Kings Manor school progresses I will happily consider an invitation to visit it and find out what the staff, governors and non-teaching staff are doing. We are trying to tackle deep-rooted failure through diversity—it does not matter which authority, or its political complexion. However, when Surrey county council talks about failure, it must examine its own part in letting down schools such as Kings Manor. In that context, we will take action from the centre to ensure that no child is left in a failing school simply because the authority has failed to live up to expectations.
Charlotte Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend remember the Opposition pledge for a grammar school in every town? If that were to be the case, which of the two excellent comprehensive schools in Leek would they choose to be the secondary modern—Westwood high or Leek high?
Mr. Blunkett: I do not think that I had better second-guess that proposition. Fortunately, as I am in favour of supporting both those excellent comprehensive schools, I do not have to do so.

Inherited SERPS
3.59 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on entitlement to inherited state earnings-related pensions.
Fourteen years ago, the previous Conservative Government made a series of pensions policy changes, which they took through Parliament. One of those changes meant that, from this April, a husband or wife could inherit a maximum of one half of their spouse's SERPS entitlement.
The Department of Social Security published the correct information for about a year after the policy change. Pensions professionals also knew about the change. However, it is clear that, from early 1987 until 1996, DSS information leaflets were issued that did not refer to it. Furthermore, it is clear that wrong information was given to a number of people by some Benefits Agency staff during that period, and for some time thereafter. There is no doubt that, as a result, some people were misled, and so could have lost out.
The giving of wrong information by a Department is inexcusable. There is a clear responsibility to ensure that the information that Departments provide is accurate and complete. In this case, it was not. Furthermore, even the serious implications of giving the wrong information were not appreciated by the Department. That should never have happened. The previous Government should have sorted the matter out years ago.
Three reports are being published today. The first is the ombudsman's investigation of four sample complaints. The second is the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on what happened and on the action needed to prevent a repetition. The third is from the National Audit Office, which, at my request, also carried out a joint review, with internal audit, of the DSS management during the relevant period. Together, the reports provide a damning indictment of what happened over those years. All the reports will be available in the Library and Vote Office.
I intend to accept all the recommendations made by the NAO and the ombudsman. I can tell the House that I propose to go further in two respects. I shall, of course, respond to additional recommendations that might arise from any subsequent Public Accounts Committee or Select Committee investigation.
Before I turn to the steps I am taking to ensure that the problem does not happen again, I shall set out my proposals to provide redress for those who lost out.
First, certain groups cannot be affected in any way. They include people who would have retired before SERPS was introduced, single and divorced people; and those who have already been widowed.
Secondly, the policy change due to come into force this April will not come in until 6 October 2002—in two and half years' time. Because of that, anyone who is widowed before October 2002 will not be affected; their spouses will still be entitled to inherited SERPS under the current rules.
Thirdly, we shall also provide redress for those people who were wrongly informed and who, had they known the true position, might have made different arrangements.
308
Ministers have approached the matter in the following way. As a matter of principle, we believe that when someone loses out because they were given the wrong information by a Department, they are entitled to redress. In applying that principle, Ministers considered two options: first, deferral for up to 14 years; and secondly, a protected rights scheme.
We want to ensure that everyone who has been misled and has lost out gets redress. Deferral alone does not solve that problem. For example, let us consider a 65-year old today who was previously given the wrong information. If he dies, at, say, 80, his widow would still have lost out, but that is not what he was told would happen. We believe that she must have access to redress, but deferral will not provide a solution for that couple. Of course, someone who received the correct information, and spent money buying alternative arrangements, would feel aggrieved if it now turns out that he need not have done so.
However, a protected rights scheme does provide redress. None of those—including people already retired—who were misinformed, and who might have acted differently had they had the correct information need lose out. Therefore, I am setting up an inherited SERPS scheme, which will allow individuals to apply to have their current rights to inheritance of SERPS preserved. To be eligible to apply, applicants must be married; they must have paid national insurance contributions since 1978; and they must have been misinformed after 1986.
The NAO report identifies a number of criteria considered essential to the success of the scheme. I agree with those recommendations. The scheme will be well publicised. We will consult widely, and, crucially, we will not proceed with processing applications from the public until we are satisfied that they can be dealt with effectively.
Postponing implementation of the policy for everyone will also allow time for claims to the scheme to be made and processed. Because I do not consider that the Benefits Agency has the capacity to deal with that work, we will set up a separate unit specially for the purpose.
We will consult the appropriate interested bodies on the delivery of the scheme, including the ombudsman and the National Audit Office. We are also writing to a number of interested organisations today. In working out the details of the scheme, there is an obligation on the Government to ensure that we have a system to get money to those who have lost out, just as there is an obligation on individuals to tell us the truth.
I shall put before the House the full details of the inherited SERPS scheme, including what information we will require from those wishing to claim and the procedures that will be followed to scrutinise those claims. The NAO and the ombudsman will be fully involved in developing those procedures.
I am setting up a helpline for anyone who is concerned. Newspaper advertisements over the next few days will publicise its number: 0845 600 6116. It opens tomorrow at 7 am. I am also writing to all right hon. and hon. Members today, setting out our proposals.
I have set out my proposals to put matters right for those people affected, but I also want to prevent this problem from happening again. The crux of the problem was that there was no clear line of accountability in the Department for ensuring that the policy changes were

309
properly implemented or that information provided to the public was accurate and complete. That is symptomatic of a wider problem that I had already identified in the Department: it was not focused on the people whom it was meant to serve, who in this case were the pensioners of today and tomorrow.
I have already begun the process of change by focusing the Department on its key client groups: children, people of working age and pensioners. We need to give a better, dedicated service to pensioners. I am already setting up a modern service with better communications, so that pensioners can get information and advice on pensions and benefits available to them.
Today, I can announce the next step. I am bringing together policy and operational responsibility for pensions under a single organisation, distinct from the Benefits Agency. The new organisation will be solely focused on the needs of pensioners and pensions policy. It will deal with everything from policy development to front-line service delivery, and from changes in the law to changes in leaflets.
We also have a responsibility to provide clear information to the public. We have already tightened up the procedures for checking leaflets and guidance, but we need to do more. The public rely on Government information and they are entitled to be reassured that leaflets are accurate and comprehensive. I believe that all our leaflets should be subject to external independent audit. That should include consultation with others to ensure that all DSS leaflets are written in plain English. I have therefore asked the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is an independent statutory body, to do that.
This failure was deplorable. It should not have happened and it will cost a minimum of £2.5 billion to put right. How much more than that depends on the number of successful claims. We are deferring the change for two and a half years. We are making sure that people do not lose out because they got the wrong information. We are making root-and-branch reforms of the DSS, and, in future, DSS leaflets will be subject to external audit, so that people can rely on clear and accurate information.
The previous Conservative Government have to take responsibility for that mess, and I will take responsibility for clearing it up. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr. David Willetts: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I begin by making it clear that I make no attempt to evade responsibility. Everyone involved must take his or her share of responsibility. We accept the ombudsman's finding that there was maladministration. It took far too long to start giving people the advice that they are entitled to expect on the changes to SERPS provisions for widows. As a result of that failure to give the right advice, many people have not made the alternative arrangements that they otherwise would have made.
We regret what happened, and much of it happened on our watch. It should not have happened. There were some attempts to give the correct advice. I have the "Benefits Information" guide of May 1995, which makes the position clear. However, there are worrying cases of people still receiving the wrong advice as late as 1999. Indeed, the National Audit Office report, which makes damning reading, expresses concern that from November 1999 to
310
10 January 2000 contradictory lines were taken in official correspondence and in other sources of information about the legal position after 5 April 2000.
The NAO report—
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Oh!
Mr. Willetts: This is a very important point about the advice that was given. I want the Secretary of State to promise that somewhere, someone in some benefit office is still not giving out-of-date information to people who are asking about their SERPS position.
The NAO report goes on to discuss the 3,500 written queries to Ministers where the Department should have provided an update on the situation of those who had expressed their concerns. It states:
We understand that this was considered but that a decision was made not to go ahead on the grounds that an announcement was expected before Christmas.
Was it the Secretary of State who decided not to respond to the 3,500 questions? Was it his colleague, the Minister of State? Was the decision made by officials? What is the Secretary of State's answer to that specific charge in the NAO report?
We accept that there is a serious problem of maladministration. However, will the Secretary of State accept—[Interruption.] As I have said, we very much regret that. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to accept something in return, which is the policy that the Labour party opposed when it was in opposition and the Conservative Government's original policy, by which the Government now stand. Will he confirm that the Government have no plans to change the 50 per cent. formula for widows' entitlement to SERPS, which was introduced in the 1986 legislation? Indeed, will he confirm that they carry that formula through into the state second pension in legislation that is now before the House? Will he confirm also that the only change to widows' SERPS entitlements introduced by the Government has been a further cut in those entitlements as part of the Government's wider cuts in widows' benefits?
Many Members on both sides of the House have been approached by constituents who phoned the Department of Social Security to check on their future SERPS entitlement and were given the wrong advice. They will surely expect to be covered by the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. That is the crucial issue, but he has ducked it today. I remind him of the assurances of his ministerial colleagues during the past few months, both in another place and in this place, about compensation. In another place, the Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Hollis of Heigham, said:
There is a very real issue of proof … No record is kept of telephone calls, any more than a record is normally kept of conversations at the desk. Paper records are kept for about six months. But if someone asserted that he had received that misleading advice, I suspect it may well be the case that the Government would have to prove that he had not, rather than the contrary, because there would be no evidence to counterbalance it.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 1999; Vol. 603, c. 847.]
The then Minister with responsibility for pensions, who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, went even further when he said:
If, for example, people have received advice by telephone, we shall take that into account. If what the hon. Gentleman is putting to me is that people may have received advice—for example, over

311
the telephone—on the basis of which they decided not to do something that they would otherwise have done, then they, too, will have a case for compensation.—[Official Report, 24 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 1313.]
I ask the Secretary of State to promise not to breach the undertakings which Ministers in his Department have already given to the House and to another place. If people say that they asked for advice and they then did nothing because of the advice that they received, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that as proof enough?
Ministers have admitted that the DSS will not have proof of the advice given because its records are destroyed after six months. Therefore, the Secretary of State's scheme, the details of which we await, must not ask pensioners to do the impossible.
The statement has been delayed from before Christmas—we know from the NAO when it was originally due to be made—because the Secretary of State has been fighting an unsuccessful battle with the Treasury on precisely that point. That is why it is so important that the right hon. Gentleman sticks to the promises that were made by his colleagues.
Does not the approach set out today contrast strikingly with that adopted by Ministers to private personal pensions? Private pension providers were presumed guilty unless they could prove that they were innocent; now, the Government intend to regulate themselves far more leniently than they have regulated others.
The DSS is acquiring an unenviable record for getting things wrong in the first place, which is bad enough, and then compounding the problem by making a mess of getting things right. We ask for a simple assurance from the Secretary of State that the widows and the people planning for their pension who have followed today's announcement will not be let down because of another DSS mess.
Mr. Darling: I am sorry that the Opposition spokesman has struck such a tone, because the matter is extremely serious. Many people in this country have been caused great distress by something which, as he acknowledges, happened largely during the period for which Conservative Ministers were responsible.
The hon. Gentleman made several points that I shall answer specifically. He referred to the mis-selling of personal private pensions, but I can tell the House what that problem has in common with the inherited SERPS problem: the Tories did nothing about either. Twenty Tory Ministers, including the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor, served in the DSS during the period in which the problems originated, but they did nothing about them. We are now sorting things out and providing to those who lost out the same measure of redress as we ask the private sector to provide to those who were mis-sold pensions.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the changes being made through the state second pension. I will happily deal with that matter at great length when the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill is reported to the House. Suffice it to say that, because of our reforms, the state second pension extends the rights that people get under SERPS.
The hon. Gentleman's central point is an important matter of concern to all hon. Members: the question of what standards are required and what the public require.
312
Let me repeat that the guiding principle is that people who have lost out will get redress. We shall work out the details of the scheme in consultation with the NAO and the ombudsman; that scheme will be laid before the House so that all hon. Members will have an opportunity to comment on it.
We have a clear obligation to establish a system that provides redress, just as there is an obligation on individuals to tell us the truth about what happened. People will be required to give us information on how they were misled when they make a claim, and we shall, of course, ask them questions about that when we process the claim. However, if there is no documentary evidence, it will be for the Department to challenge or disprove the claim. I hope that that makes the position absolutely clear. We recognise the difficulties caused by the fact that many people will not have documentary evidence, and we are determined to be fair to the people who have lost out.
Finally, I made it clear in my statement that I accept full responsibility for anything that goes on during the course of this Government in the Department for which I am responsible. The mess was created by the Conservatives when they were in power, but I take full responsibility, down to the last word and detail of the scheme, for trying to sort out the mess for the benefit of many pensioners.
Mr. Frank Field: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree that it is important that we make a distinction between the gang opposite and their incompetence and the way in which we shall respond to their incompetence? Does he accept that, because there is such chaos in the Department that he must now set up a separate unit to deal with the issue, nobody outside will accept the word of the Department or that unit against the word of our constituents who say that they asked for advice, that they were given bad advice and that they acted accordingly?
Mr. Darling: No, I do not agree with my right hon. Friend on that point. The basic problem with the Department of Social Security over the years is that it did not have a clear enough focus on its client groups—children, people of working age and pensioners. The Benefits Agency in particular, which is the organisation under discussion, has a wide focus because of the varied needs of all the types of people who come through its doors.
In a new organisation created to deal solely with pensions and pensioners, the staff will be totally focused on pensioners' needs. As my right hon. Friend knows, we have some excellent staff in the Department of Social Security, who sometimes have to work with policies introduced by politicians which are not easy to implement. Nothing in my remarks was intended as criticism of the general quality of our staff.
We must make sure that we have a scheme in place that is workable and fair, and that provides redress for the people who lost out. We also need to make sure that the DSS and its agencies are reorganised to be better focused on the people whom they are meant to serve. That is what I am determined to see through.
Mr. Steve Webb: I am afraid that the Government's response is wholly inadequate, not because

313
of what it does for the people who were actively misled, but because of what it does not do for the far larger number of people who were simply never told.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the pensioners who ring the Department and write letters are atypical, and that most pensioners do not ring up and do not go to get leaflets—they just carry on. They assume that if their rights are to be slashed, someone will tell them.
Can the Secretary of State say whether he told pensioners that their rights would be slashed in good time for them to do something about it? If he and his predecessors did not do that, how can he justify going ahead with the cuts now—the Tory cuts that he would have opposed?
The delay until October 2002 is a fig leaf. Can the Secretary of State confirm that his own statement proves that the deferral to 2002 is an irrelevance to most pensioners? For a younger pensioner, as long as her husband lives for two years now, the deferral is irrelevant. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that people who have reached pension age, provided that their husbands survive a few more years, will face the full cut and may never have been told about it?
Given the healthy state of the national insurance fund and a £3 billion surplus of revenue over expenditure next year alone, could not the right hon. Gentleman have persuaded his former friends in the Treasury to allocate that to Britain's widows? Is it not time that the Secretary of State and his colleagues stopped being the Treasury's poodles and started standing up for pensioners?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has an exceedingly short memory. With regard to the national insurance surplus, he spent that two debates ago. I forget what he spent it on—some other pension provision—so, if he had had his way, the national insurance surplus would have been spent already. It is not available a second time round.
I said that the hon. Gentleman had a short memory. Only yesterday, he tabled an early-day motion calling on us to provide compensation for those pensioners. We are providing a scheme for redress for pensioners. Only 24 hours later, he has forgotten that that is what he asked for.
Let us go back to first principles. The principle must be that if the Government give people the wrong information, they must face the consequences and provide them with redress. That is precisely what we are doing. We are doing so whether people are still working or have already retired. If they received the wrong information, they will all be eligible to receive redress.
The hon. Gentleman must remember that there are many people now working and many who have retired who did know about the changes and made alternative provision, for which they had to pay. He would say that they need not have spent all that money. If he is saying that he is in favour of deferral, he must bear in mind the fact that I said in my statement—the hon. Gentleman nods. That is today's policy, so I shall deal with it. Now he shakes his head. That policy lasted five seconds.
Through deferral, the problem is merely postponed. That means that the widow of a man who dies in 10 or 14 years would still lose out. Unlike the Liberals, who do not have to face any of these problems—it is all pretty theoretical, as far as they are concerned—we are facing up
314
to a real problem that we inherited. Far too many people received the wrong advice, and we are giving them redress.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we had deferred the policy to 2002. That is to ensure that we can get the scheme under way and provide redress for the pensioners about whom we should all be concerned.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I should now like short questions. Several hon. Members want to ask questions, and I want to safeguard the business of the House for the rest of the day. I should also like brisk answers from the Secretary of State.
Mr. David Winnick: If we were considering local government maladministration, a surcharge would have been imposed on those responsible for the problems. Those responsible for the problems that we are considering are getting away scot free.
I welcome the postponement in implementing the policy to 2002. Putting aside the way in which the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made his point, would it be possible for the policy to be reconsidered? Many of us believe that the Tories were wrong to do what they did in the first place.
Mr. Darling: The policy change was announced 14 years ago. It is not possible to turn the clock back to the world of 1986. Many people have made provision in good faith as a result of the law since 1986. If any Government turn the clock back, they will create a new group of losers. Most people would find that unacceptable.
Sir Norman Fowler: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in informing me about the statement in advance. I have had the opportunity of reading only the Parliamentary Commissioner's report. I support the Secretary of State's statement, and I take responsibility for my period of office from 1981–87.
On the parliamentary process, will the Secretary of State confirm that the changes were set out in a Government White Paper in December 1985, that they were outlined in a statement that I made to the House on 16 December 1985, and that they were fully debated in lengthy Committee proceedings in 1986? In accepting responsibility, will the Secretary of State confirm that the parliamentary process was openly followed?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that, while the Government are deferring the change that I proposed in 1986, they are continuing with the basic policy that I introduced then? My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) pressed the Secretary of State to confirm that.
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first comment. I wrote to all my predecessors, including the former Prime Minister, who was also a Minister in the former Department of Health and Social Security, because I believed that it was right to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman would not have seen the National Audit Office report or the ombudsman's report because their publication is not a matter for me. The reports are rightly made directly to the House.

315
There was a lot of publicity about the changes when they were made. The first leaflet that the Department of Health and Social Security produced was right. I tried to explain to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that many people knew about the changes and planned accordingly. Paragraph 1.12 of the National Audit Office report states that pension professionals, who advise people, also knew about the changes. That is our problem. Some people knew about them and acted accordingly, but others who picked up leaflets published by the DHSS and the BA did not know.
I am addressing the fundamental problem in the Department that was not tackled during the Conservative years: making sure that the correct information is issued and that our staff know the policy.
Mr. Terry Rooney: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Given NIRS2 and other problems, are there any more ticking time bombs, which cost billions of pounds, left by the previous Administration? How long does my right hon. Friend envisage that it will take to settle claims once they are made? I welcome the new pensions department. Can we at last get rid of the question on the income support claim form for pensioners that asks whether they are pregnant?
Mr. Darling: On the latter point, I certainly hope so. Indeed, the steps that I have announced this afternoon whereby all DSS leaflets will be externally audited will improve matters. There are two reasons for that: they need to be right and they need to be readable. I suppose that it is conceivable—to coin a phrase—that a pensioner could be pregnant, but probably unlikely. However, I shall certainly consider that.
My hon. Friend asks whether there are any more ticking time bombs. When the problem came to light—I was first made aware of it at the end of 1998—I asked the Department to read all the leaflets that are now being produced to ensure that they are accurate and up to date. I am as satisfied as I can be that that is the case, but I do not suppose that I am any different from any of my predecessors as Secretary of State for Social Security in that I spend rather more of my day than I would like dealing with time bombs that may not be ticking, but look like they might tick in future.
Mr. Willetts: Stakeholders.
Mr. Darling: I was thinking of some of the other problems that we inherited—NIRS2, the benefit payment card and the mis-selling of SERPS. I have a long list of messes to clear up as a result of the Tory Government.
Mr. David Davis: I welcome the Secretary of State's deferment of the change in the SERPS scheme and his undertaking to enact the National Audit Office recommendations and any subsequent Public Accounts Committee recommendations, but he will be aware that the ombudsman and the NAO expressed reservations in their reports about the second stage—the protected rights compensation. Can he answer three points? Can he confirm that the costing for his proposed scheme assumes only one third take-up among
316
SERPS holders, which is an important measure? Will he give an undertaking that not only will the scheme be laid before the House, but that we shall have a debate on the Floor of the House—not in a Statutory Instrument Committee—after the ombudsman has commented on it? After the scheme has been operating for a year, but before the two and a half years are up, can we have a review, perhaps by the NAO? We must look to see whether justice has been done to all those people who have been misled over the years.
Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman raises three points. The NAO and the ombudsman properly said that the redress provided is a matter for Parliament, not them. They have both said that they would like to comment on it and I made it very clear in my statement that I want them to do so. I shall listen to any recommendations that they want to make because it is important to take on board what the Department's external auditor—which is what the NAO is—and the ombudsman have to say.
On costings, I said earlier that the minimum cost is £2.5 billion. It could be more, depending on the number of people who tell us that they were misled. We shall not know the position for some time, but my guess is that, during the year, especially with the helpline opening, we shall get a better feel for exactly how many people were misled. The scheme has to be confirmed by the House so that it is debatable. That is a matter for the usual channels.
Finally, we would clearly want to review the scheme continuously. I shall reflect on what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I am not giving him any undertakings. I hope that we are all trying to do the best that we can for those people, and Members—Front-Bench or otherwise—should try to make sure that we have a scheme that works and put right what went very wrong for a large number of people.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: The Secretary of State will be aware that the NAO report states:
even though the absence was noted—
that is the absence of the information—
when a draft was circulated within the then Department of Health and Social Security
in 1987, when a leaflet was being prepared. Obviously, that statement was made on the basis of evidence. What is the evidence that that absence was noted? Does it take the form of a memo? If so, from and to whom was it sent? Does it take the form of minutes of meeting? If so, who was present at that meeting, who drafted the minutes and to whom were they circulated? It is fundamental that we find out who knew that the draft leaflet did not contain the appropriate information.
Mr. Darling: Perhaps I should explain to the House and my hon. Friend that the NAO was asked to consider these matters because it can read all relevant papers, including those given to Ministers in the previous Government, and the advice. He will know that, by convention and quite rightly, I cannot see the advice given to Conservative Ministers, but the NAO and the ombudsman did see it. However, they do not say that such and such information was in a minute sent to the Secretary of State.
I do not know where the information came from, because the NAO produced the report, but I can say that the NAO and the ombudsman reached similar

317
conclusions. They did not believe that any deliberate attempt had been made to stop the information from being made public; they concluded that, because of the byzantine structure of the Department at the time—we are now putting that right—too many people had an interest in preparing the leaflets, and no one person was there to take responsibility for ensuring that they were correct and up to date.
I am now remedying the problem. Three weeks ago, I announced major management changes in the Department to streamline it and make it more effective, and today I am going a step further with the new pensions organisation. As for who wrote what and when, we asked the NAO to investigate because it is external to the Department and acts without fear or favour. I am happy to accept its recommendations, but I cannot see all the papers that may have been circulated in 1987.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for making it clear which pensioners will have preserved rights. Many of my constituents are concerned about the matter.
It is obvious that those who have written documentary evidence that they were misled about their entitlement will have a bang-to-rights case. However, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that merely stating that they had discussed the matter with a benefits officer, or had discussed it on the telephone—presumably the DSS could not disprove that, as it does not keep records for very long—would entitle my constituents to preserved rights?
Mr. Darling: As I said a moment ago, we shall present to the House proposals giving details of the procedures that people will have to follow, and the scrutiny that the Department will conduct to ensure that claims are well founded. All that will be clearly set out, so that people will know exactly where they stand.
Mr. Mark Todd: The scheme that my right hon. Friend has described may well deal with those who have been misinformed, but I am less sure that it deals with those who have not been informed of the changes made in 1986. At any point, were those who might have been affected posted clear information by the previous Government explaining the implications of the change?
Mr. Darling: I do not think that any Government have written routinely to all citizens telling them about changes they have made to any law, let alone this one. When my hon. Friend thinks about it, he will realise that that would be a massive undertaking.
Let me return my hon. Friend to first principles. In the Government or the private sector, when someone does something as a result of which someone else loses out because they could not make arrangements, redress must be provided, and that is what we are doing. We are providing redress on the ground that some people went to the Department and were given the wrong information. That is the principle, but my hon. Friend suggests that we should go beyond it. I am saying that, when the Government give wrong information, they clearly have a responsibility to provide redress.
Mr. David Rendel: May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to two comments in the
318
NAO report—which I am happy to have helped to instigate by requesting such material from the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee? First, the figures for the preserved rights scheme suggest that, even if only a third of claims are met, the total cost may be £8.2 billion. The report says that that implies a great risk, in that, if all the claims are met, the cost could be more than £20 billion.
Secondly—this, surely, is a critical aspect of the preserved rights scheme—how will the Secretary of State ensure that everyone who might be eligible applies? Will he write to everyone who might be eligible, just as he demanded that people should be written to when the private pension mis-selling scandal arose? Will he also confirm that there will be no time limit? Will someone who is widowed in 2005, and has not at that point had the rights preserved, still have a chance to do so?
Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman has read the reports from the NAO and the ombudsman, he will have seen that both ask that we spend some time doing a number of things to ensure that the scheme works. One is to discuss the publicity with them. The Government are determined to ensure that the scheme gets the widest possible publicity, including advertising. We will consult the NAO, the ombudsman and other interested bodies to find out what else we need to do.
The second thing comes back to a familiar theme. It is important to remember what the principle is: where the Department has given the wrong information, we provide people with redress. It follows, therefore, that we need to do everything that we possibly can to draw that to the public's attention.
Mr. Keith Darvill: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. It is clearly another mess created by the Conservative party, which the Government are sorting out.
May I ask one or two practical questions? Do those constituents of ours who have already written to complain need to submit a formal application? Is there a time by which those applications need to be submitted? Indeed, will there be a limitation period for submitting applications for claims by constituents generally?
Mr. Darling: About 3,000 people have written to the Department or contacted it. We have a note of their names and addresses. We will write to them in the next few days. It will be made clear to them and, indeed, to the population at large that, once the scheme is ready to receive claims, there will be further advertising telling people where to write, what information to include and how we intend to process it. Included in that will be the dates by which we want to get the applications in.
Mr. Paul Burstow: Can the Secretary of State confirm that those people who did not know that the Government had made changes in 1986 and who at no point during the past 14 years knew that the changes had been made will effectively be excluded from the preserved rights scheme? By dint of not knowing, they did not pick up the telephone, look at the leaflet or write a letter. Many people outside the House will find it hard to understand why they are being excluded from his scheme.
Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, the logic of what he has said is that, if anyone anywhere were

319
to say that they did not know about any change in the law, they could say to the Government, "You had better scrap the law." Even for the Liberal Democrats, that is pushing matters. We are saying that, where people were given the wrong information and, because of that, lost the opportunity to do something differently, we will provide them with redress. That is the right thing to do in principle. It is what we would require of the private sector. It is the right thing for the public sector to do.
Angela Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which obviously concentrated on the practical and financial aspects, but does he accept that, when people retire, or make provision for their spouse after their death, one of the things that they need most in life is security and certainty? The catalogue of Conservative horrors has created greater fear, worry and uncertainty for many people. Many who come to our surgeries are very upset and worried. Does he share my frustration that, although we have heard the Conservative party say that it accepts responsibility, it has at no stage said sorry?
Mr. Darling: On the latter point, that is something that most of us are well used to, so perhaps we are not as sensitive to it as others, but it is better to concentrate on what we will do to put matters right. I make just two points. First, we are making changes to SERPS and the state second pension that will mean that people who are on low pay—say, about £6,000 a year—will get about £54 a week through SERPS, instead of £14 a week, which is a big change.
Secondly, shortly—over the next few years—we will be able to provide everyone in this country with an annual pension statement, which will tell them exactly how much they are retiring on. That will be one of the single biggest ways in which to give people reassurance. They will be able to see in black and white what they are getting from the state, from their occupational or stakeholder pension. If any future Government come along who are like the last lot over there and start slashing things, privatising basic state pensions, or whatever the latest policy is, people will know about it very soon.
Mr. David Heath: Am I right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman plans to do something about the sins of commission but not the sins of omission? He will do something about actively misleading, but not about failing to give proper advice. Will he now give an answer to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride)? Is it correct that that assertion, in the absence of any contrary proof from the Department, will be sufficient evidence for the scheme? What will be the position of someone who can prove that they were misled but second hand—in other words not directly from the Department but from some intermediary who has taken advice from the Department?
Mr. Darling: I have just told the House that the details of the scheme will be worked out after consultation and will come before the House. I have also made it clear that all claims will be scrutinised. As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the Department
320
will have to challenge any information. If people think that they have a claim, they should come forward and we will look at it and scrutinise it in the normal way.
Mr. John Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, however outrageous the behaviour of the Conservative party when in government, it was entirely consistent with the culture of fraud and mis-selling in the pensions industry which I believe that the Conservatives deliberately engineered during the 1980s? Will my right hon. Friend consider that there will be some problems with pensioners proving that they were misinformed or misled? My right hon. Friend mentioned the guidelines. How soon will they be produced? What definitive criteria will they contain and to what extent will it be a question of individual social security officers adjudicating on individual cases?
Mr. Darling: On the latter point, I want to avoid creating a further problem by producing guidelines that are so general that we get into a host of other problems. The rules and regulations under which the inherited SERPS schemes will work will be as strict as possible so that all our staff know how they operate. I repeat that we want to discuss the guidelines with the NAO and the ombudsman, as they have requested, so that we get them right. Also, we are writing today to many organisations, such as Help the Aged and Age Concern, to ensure that the scheme is operated fairly so that we can put right the problems that so many people face. We will make every effort to ensure that the guidelines are right. Getting them right is rather more important than trying to rush forward with rules and regulations that do not work. I want to take time to get it right because that is precisely what the ombudsman and the NAO are asking us to do.
Kali Mountford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that acceptance and regret do not add up to sorry?
My right hon. Friend's announcement about the new organisation for pensioners is a significant move. Will that include all work for pensioners such as state pensions, SERPS, second state pensions and minimum income guarantee? How soon will it be set up and will it be able to liaise with other Departments and organisations such as the national health service and local government so that benefits work together properly for pensioners and so that security and service really start to mean something?
Mr. Darling: The pensions organisation will be responsible for pensions and pensions policy operations. It will also be responsible for the benefits that go to older people, including the minimum income guarantee. I will have something further to say about that in the not too distant future.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Does the Secretary of State realise that his reply to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is inconsistent with his earlier statement that he will accept the ombudsman's report in full? He told the hon. Gentleman that applications would be challenged in the normal way. On page 13 of the ombudsman's report, paragraph 32 says that the normal burden of proof should be changed round and that the burden of proof must

321
rest with the Department. Let me be clear: if an uncorroborated telephone call is made, will it be up to the Department to prove that it did not take place?
Mr. Darling: Let me repeat what I said when I answered the hon. Member for Havant and other hon. Members. We will set out in the regulations what information is required and what questions people will be asked when the claim is processed. I said that, where there is no documentary evidence, it will be for the Department to challenge or disprove the claim.

Points of Order
4.50 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The matter relates to the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and me. I am conscious that you are jealous of the protocol maintaining that, when a matter is referred to you for consideration, an hon. Member should not discuss that matter either in the media or outside the House until you have delivered your ruling on it. I assume that the same courtesy and protocol should be applied in the matter of findings by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
I should like to draw your attention to the fact that I was never notified that the hon. Member for Hull, North would be raising an issue—in relation to my interests, which were registered—to cast doubts on my integrity, and that he would do so publicly, in the media, prior to an adjudication. I should add that the Commissioner found that I had no case to answer.
May I also ask you to adjudicate on whether an hon. Member who asks—at a cost of more than £52,000, and in a comparatively short period—153 parliamentary questions, which amount to a denigrating campaign against the Royal Ulster Constabulary, is infringing the privileges of the House?
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) had to say. It was interesting that the questions to which he referred—which were tabled to the Ministry of Defence—revealed that rifles used on Bloody Sunday were destroyed when they were under the control of the Ministry of Defence. I should have thought that they would have been vital evidence in the Bloody Sunday inquiry.
It would also have revealed that the Police Federation of Northern Ireland used a Government website to state its opposition to the Patten committee report. That matter concerns the spending of money.
It would also have revealed that the questions that I was tabling concerned police action, or lack of action, in the killing of Mr. Hamill—
Madam Speaker: Order. May I inquire how this information concerns me? I am prepared to deal with the original point of order, but how does that information concern me?
Mr. McNamara: The point that I am making is that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone tabled a question that cast aspersions on the cost of the questions that I had tabled and on my activities as a Member of Parliament, in tabling those questions to check the Executive. I thought that that was in my power. That is my response to the hon. Gentleman's latter point.
As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, he did not inform me that he would table a question about me. It is common practice for hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, to say that they have referred matters to the Registrar. I should have thought that such referrals are a matter of public knowledge.

323
I am still in correspondence with the Registrar, on the basis of her reply. I think that it is proper, under the rules of the House, to say that registered interests must be declared when a question is tabled, and that a man who receives from the Police Federation of Northern Ireland money, to the extent of £4,000 annually, to help him in his research, and who is a former B special—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I should now give a ruling on the matter.
Let me deal, first, with the latter point, raised by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), on the number of parliamentary questions that are tabled by hon. Members. I cannot give a ruling on that matter. I have no responsibility whatsoever to restrict such questions. I am sure, however, that hon. Members will use their discretion in the matter, knowing full well the cost of such questions.
I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) raised the original point of order, as it dealt with a matter that has troubled me very considerably. There is nothing in the rules of the House that prevent an hon. Member who complains to the Parliamentary Commissioner about a colleague from informing the media. However, I have to say that I regard such actions as discourteous, unjust and unfair. In particular, it can give credence to accusations that subsequently turn out to be unfounded, by which time the damage has been done and cannot be repaired.
I hope very much that all right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will pay attention to the ruling that I have just given, which is a very considered one.
Mr. McNamara: In view of what you have just said, Madam Speaker, all my future actions will follow your ruling, although Opposition Members have not always done so.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a good and long-standing Member of the House.
Angela Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Prime Minister's Question Time, you and
324
other right hon. and hon. Members heard someone heckling my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in unparliamentary language and you seemed concerned when no hon. Member admitted using that unparliamentary language. Have you taken the matter further, and do you intend to ask the Leader of the Opposition to take it up with his Back Benchers and report to you who is responsible?
Mr. Stephen Pound: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As many of us were disgusted and rather saddened by the use of the unparliamentary and inaccurate epithet that was hurled from the Opposition Benches, have you received any representation on the subject from the hon. and gallant Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)?
Madam Speaker: Let me reply to the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith). I shall not take the course of action that she suggests and ask the Leader of the Opposition to take up the matter. This afternoon, the Opposition Benches were particularly crowded and noisy, and I clearly heard an unparliamentary word. I did not know which hon. Member uttered that word. Had I done so, I would have immediately asked him to withdraw it. When I attempted to find the hon. Member responsible, as the House saw, no one admitted using that word. However, I have noted what the hon. Lady said and I have some indication of the area—I shall leave it at that—from which the word was uttered.

BILL PRESENTED
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURT SERVICES
  Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Jane Kennedy and Mr. Paul Boateng, presented a Bill to establish a National Probation Service for England and Wales and a Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; to make further provision for the protection of children; to make further provision about dealing with persons suspected of, charged with or convicted of offences; to amend the law relating to access to information held under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 91].

  Broadcasting of Recorded Music in Public Places
  4.57 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the broadcasting of recorded music in certain public places.
  First, as a good Conservative, may I say how much I dislike regulations in principle. However, we spen our time in this place regulating human behaviour in one way or another—as we have just seen. I dislike imposing my prejudices, my preferences and my will on other people, but I also dislike them imposing theirs on me. However, politics is not just the art of the possible; it is the art of getting the balance right. It is precisely because I believe that in this case the balance has swung too far in the wrong direction that I seek to introduce this Bill.
  The Bill is not anti-music. Nor is it anti-recorded music, though it is certainly pro-live music. I am passionate about music. Music has always been of huge importance to me, both as a listener and as a singer. I have been privileged to sing with some of the great choirs of this country including the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields and the Monteverdi Choir. I must have sung in hundreds of live performances with them and made a fair number of recordings.
  My taste may not be your taste, Madam Speaker, and I would not wish to impose it on you. Music is an intensely personal thing. Much as I love Mozart and Handel, there are moments when I crave Ella Fitzgerald, Queen or, just maybe, All Saints.
  Piped music, muzak or canned music is increasingly disliked and despised. All music is devalued if it is treated as acoustic wallpaper. People mind if they are trapped with no chance of escape from someone else's choice of music on a plane, in a bus, on a train, in a restaurant or pub, during otherwise decent television programmes, while held in a queue on a telephone or while sitting worrying in a doctor's surgery or a hospital.
  The Bill would exclude the playing of piped music in a very limited number of public places. Places such as pubs, shops, restaurants and hotels would not be affected, because there is a choice—we can always walk away—but the Bill would exclude the playing of piped music in the public parts of hospitals, doctors' surgeries, public swimming pools, bus and railway stations, airports and public highways.
  Perhaps the ultimate affront is the playing of piped music in the streets, as is done in many French towns, especially on market days. There have been one or two attempts to do that here. I notice that, for example, Harvey Nichols in Knightsbridge jingles into the street at Christmas time. Busking is entirely different, although I draw the line at amplified busking in the street.
  People might be surprised to hear that muzak is invading our hospitals. I have seen anguished letters from patients in Grimsby hospital; Nelson hospital, Merton; St. Richard's hospital, Chichester; and the Royal eye hospital in Kingston.
  A patient from Barnstead had day surgery on his hand last year. In the ward where he was prepared a radio was playing loudly. He was delayed in going in for the operation because his blood pressure was too high. He said that he would be far calmer if the wretched machine
  326
  were turned off. The nurse explained that she did not like the radio herself, but that she was not responsible for it. He complained to the hospital trust, but got the usual big organisation blather saying that most people liked it.
  What are the facts? Gatwick airport carried out a survey of travellers' attitudes to piped music. Of the 68,077 who replied, 43 per cent. said that they disliked piped music, 34 per cent. said that they liked it and 23 per cent. had no opinion. Gatwick airport has since discontinued playing such music.
  A November 1998 NOP poll that showed that 34 per cent. disliked piped music and only 30 per cent. liked it. Among those aged over 45, a majority hated it, and, even among young people, one in five disliked it. In January 1997, a poll for The Sunday Times asked people what single thing they most detested about modern life. Third in the list of most hated things was piped music. The first two were other forms of noise.
  All unwanted noise raises the blood pressure and depresses the immune system. A survey of blood donors at Nottingham University medical school in January 1995 found that playing piped music made blood donors more nervous before giving blood and more depressed afterwards. The NOP poll of 1998 found that among deaf people—nearly one in five of the population have hearing problems—86 per cent. disliked piped music. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People now backs a campaign against piped music.
  Blind people, who rely on background sounds to help to find their way around, find piped music upsetting. Musicians of all sorts loathe piped music because they find acoustic wallpaper offensive. Of course, piped music does not come free. It is an extra that has to be paid for with every meal, drink, book, ticket and piece of clothing. Incidentally, there is no objective evidence that customers in shops either like piped music or spend more because of it. In fact, Tesco, the John Lewis Partnership—including Waitrose—Sainsbury's and the Wetherspoon pub chain have all decided not to install it.
  A guide to muzak-free pubs, "The Quiet Pint", has been produced by the campaign for freedom from piped music, known as Pipedown, which has its headquarters in my constituency. It is supported by a galaxy of stars. The patrons of Pipedown include Alfred Brendel, Tom Conti, Antonia Fraser, Stephen Fry, Lesley Garrett, John Humphrys, Julian Lloyd Webber, Joanna Lumley, Peter Maxwell Davies, George Melly, Spike Milligan, Simon Rattle, Prunella Scales and many others.
  Piped music is pollution: a pollution from which there is no escape. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health reports that noise complaints rose from 200 per million of population in 1971 to 5,051 per million in 1997. The commonest type of offending noise is not pneumatic drills, cars or aircraft but music.
  Noise remains the least recognised form of pollution. Sufferers from noise pollution—the victims—are inherently quiet people who do not like protesting. Of course, the pollution leaves no mark the moment that it stops, except on the shattered nerves and health of its victims. Unwanted noise raises blood pressure and cholesterol levels, increases muscle tension and induces hormone secretion among sufferers. It can also intensify hearing problems and may trigger attacks of tinnitus among vulnerable people.

  327
  The dangers of passive or involuntary listening are only beginning to enter the realm of public awareness. Noise pollution is often seen as unpleasant but inevitable. It is not. The Noise Act 1996 increased environmental health officers' powers to deal with noise, but 94 per cent. of local authorities have decided not to implement the Act, and only 10 authorities have done so.
  Of course, I would be far happier if my Bill were not necessary. Is it too much to hope that, by my raising the issue in this way, people will think twice before installing muzak? An old proverb, thought to be of oriental origin, has it that speech is silver but silence is golden. There is a Hebrew equivalent—if a word be worth one shekel, silence is worth two. That is all true. But as Spike Milligan put it, "Tranquillity lubricates the soul, piped music destroys it."
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Paul Keetch, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Michael Mates, Mrs. Gillian Shephard and Dr. Jenny Tonge.

  Broadcasting of Recorded Music in Public Places
    BROADCASTING OF RECORDED MUSIC IN PUBLIC PLACES
    Mr. Robert Key accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the broadcasting of recorded music in certain public places: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 April, and to be printed [Bill 90].
Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Terrorism Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Terrorism Bill
    New Clause 1

      FINANCIAL INFORMATION
      '. Schedule [Financial information] (financial information) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.7 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 39.
      Government new schedule—Financial Information.
      Mr. Clarke: The purpose of the new clause is to provide a new power to investigate terrorist finance. New schedule 1 sets out how, and new clause 1 switches on the new schedule. Amendment No. 39 adds the two order-making powers in the new schedule to the list of orders under the Bill to be made by affirmative resolution.
      A similar power is already in use in Northern Ireland for proceeds of crime investigations. It is a very powerful tool and has proved its effectiveness. A so-called general bank circular, once authorised by a circuit judge or equivalent, allows the police to write to financial institutions asking them whether they hold accounts in particular names. The financial institution only has to say whether it holds accounts in the names given. If a person under investigation has, for example, a very large number of accounts, or accounts with a very large number of banks, that in itself can be a useful lead.
      The general bank circular does not enable the police to look at the details of what is in the account. If the police wanted to do that, they would need to seek a production order under schedule 5. The new schedule is modelled on certain powers of financial investigators under schedule 2 to the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. However, rather than proceeds of crime, the new schedule is for investigating terrorist finance: that can, of course, include money intended for use in terrorism, not just proceeds of acts of terrorism, as in the definition of "terrorist property" in clause 14. That is why the new power is needed in Northern Ireland, as well as in Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, it will complement the existing power in the proceeds of crime order. In Great Britain, it will be new.
      We have consulted the banking and financial services industry on the proposal. The banks were generally supportive and supplied helpful information on compliance costs and other practical issues, for which I put on record the Government's thanks. We have taken their views into account in developing the proposal. Further details of the consultation are in the regulatory impact assessment document, which has been placed in the Library.
      Where an order is made under paragraph (1), a constable can require financial institutions, as defined in the Bill, to provide customer information, which is also defined in the Bill.
      330
      The new schedule contains two order-making powers, to change the definitions of the terms "financial institutions" and "customer information" for the purposes of the schedule. Amendment No. 39 ensures that those orders are subject to the affirmative procedure of the House.
      Mr. David Lidington: Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, the Opposition have joined the Government in stressing the importance of having on the statute book measures that are comprehensive and effective when it comes to dealing with terrorist finances. Therefore, we support the new measures that the Minister has just described.
      The safeguards built into the new clause and the new schedule are sufficient to enable us to accept that the liberties of the people and institutions affected by the proposals have been protected, and the Minister has set out how the affirmative resolution procedure will be utilised. A police officer of senior rank seeking an order under the arrangements will have to get the permission of a senior judge in order to proceed.
      As the Government made clear in the regulatory impact assessment, the proposed annual review of the legislation will give the Government and Parliament the opportunity to hear representations from the financial services industry about the practical effect of the measure. There will as a result be an opportunity for the House to consider possible changes to the law in the light of those representations.
      I have one minor criticism. The consultation period lasted from 2 September to 15 October last year, and it is a pity that the Government could not present detailed conclusions about this aspect of the Bill a little earlier. Although the financial institutions were consulted earlier, and their views taken into account last autumn, they have not yet had the opportunity to consider the Government's final proposals at length, or to consult members of the various representative organisations.
      However, the new clause and new schedule are welcome and have our support.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: We consider the power proposed in the new clause and new schedule to be reasonable. I have two specific questions for the Minister about the results of the consultation, which he has been kind enough to allow us to see.
      First, has the Minister received an opinion from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the statutory body established to consider such matters? Secondly, a review of emergency legislation is reported to the House every year. Has the Minister received advice from any independent, Government-appointed person—Lord Lloyd, for example—who has undertaken such a review and can give authority to the proposal?
      In general, we are happy with the new clause and new schedule. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, adjustments may have to made in the light of experience, but it is appropriate that this necessary power should be in this Bill.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I welcome the support from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, and I accept the gentle and gracefully phrased rebuke from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington).

      331
      I can tell the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that our principal consultation was held with members of the financial, business and banking community. They would be most affected by our proposals, which we modified to some extent to meet the points that they raised. For example, we included the provision in paragraph (4)(b), which states that an institution can offer the defence that it has not complied with the requirement because to do so "was not reasonably practicable". That defence could be employed if an enormous number of names were involved, for example, or if there were other practical problems of a similar nature. The costs involved will not be disproportionate, as the regulatory impact assessment makes clear. We estimate that compliance costs to the banking and financial services industries will total about £900,000.
      I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the detailed comments of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Lord Lloyd or anyone else, because our focus was on the banking community. However, I will write to him on that, as he requests.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      DETENTION OF TERRORISTS
      '. Schedule [Detention of Terrorists] to this Act shall have effect with respect to the detention of terrorists and persons suspected of being terrorists.'.—[Mr. MacKay.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Andrew MacKay: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new schedule 2:—Detention of Terrorists—

      Advisers
      1. The Secretary of State shall for the purposes of this Schedule appoint such number of Advisers as he may determine to advise him on matters concerning the detention and release of terrorists.
      2. An Adviser shall be a person who holds or has held judicial office in any part of the United Kingdom or who is—

      (a) a person who has a ten year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990; or

      (b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least ten years' standing; or

      (c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland of at least ten years' standing.

      3.—(1) An Adviser shall hold and vacate his office in accordance with the terms of his appointment and shall, on ceasing to hold office, be eligible for reappointment.
      (2) An Adviser may at any time by notice in writing to the Secretary of State resign his office.
      (3) The Secretary of State may pay to the Advisers such remuneration and allowances as he may determine.

      Interim custody orders
      4.—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that there are grounds for suspecting that a person has been concerned—

      (a) in the commission or attempted commission of any act of terrorism, or

      (b) in directing, organising or training persons for the purpose of terrorism,

      the Secretary of State may make an interim custody order for the temporary detention of that person.
      (2) An interim custody order shall be signed by the Secretary of State or a Minister of State or Under Secretary of State.
      5.—(1) The Secretary of State may, at any time before the expiry of the period of fourteen days following the date of an interim custody order, refer the case to an Adviser and, unless the case is so referred, the order shall cease to have effect at the expiry of that period.
      (2) A reference to an Adviser under this paragraph shall be by notice in writing signed on behalf of the Secretary of State and a copy of the notice shall be sent to the person detained.

      Reference to an Adviser
      6.—(1) As soon as possible after a case is referred to an Adviser under paragraph 5, the person detained shall be served with a statement in writing as to the nature of the terrorist activities of which he is suspected.
      (2) A person detained may, within seven days following the date on which he receives any such statement as is mentioned in subparagraph (1), send to the Secretary of State—

      (a) written representations concerning his case; and

      (b) a written request that he be seen personally by an Adviser;

      and the Secretary of State shall send a copy of such representations or request to the Adviser concerned.
      (3) The Secretary of State may pay any reasonable costs or expenses incurred by a person detained in obtaining legal advice or legal assistance in connection with the preparation of any representations he may make concerning his case.
      7.—(1) Where the case of a person detained under an interim custody order is referred to an Adviser, he shall consider it and report to the Secretary of State whether or not in his opinion—

      (a) the person detained has been concerned in terrorist activities; and

      (b) the detention of that person is necessary for the protection of the public.

      (2) In considering any case referred to him an Adviser shall have regard to any information (whether oral or in writing) which is made available to, or obtained by, him and to any representations (whether oral or in writing) made by the persons detained.
      (3) No person shall be present during the consideration of an Adviser of the case of any person referred to him, except—

      (a) any person who for the time being is being seen by the Adviser;

      (b) any assistant to the Adviser; and

      (c) any person who is present in the interests of security.

      (4) The Secretary of State may, at the request of an Adviser, pay any reasonable expenses incurred by any person in connection with a reference to the Adviser.

      Detention orders
      8.—(1) After receiving a report made by an Adviser under paragraph 7(1), the Secretary of State shall consider the case of the person to whom it relates and, if he is satisfied—

      (a) that the person has been concerned in the commission or attempted commission of any act of terrorism, or in directing, organising or training persons for the purposes of terrorism, and

      (b) that the detention of that person is necessary for the protection of the public,

      333
      the Secretary of State may make a detention order for the detention of that person.
      (2) If, on considering any case under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State is not satisfied as mentioned in that sub-paragraph, he shall direct the release of the person concerned.
      (3) Subject to sub-paragraphs (4) and (5), where—

      (a) a person is detained under an interim custody order; and

      (b) a detention order is not made in respect of that person within the period of seven weeks following the date of the interim custody order,

      the interim custody order shall cease to have effect.
      (4) The Secretary of State may, where a person is required to be detained under an interim custody order, give a direction in writing extending the period of seven weeks mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) (or that period as extended under this sub-paragraph) for a further period of one week if it is stated in the direction that the report of the Adviser in relation to that person's case has not been received before the sixth day immediately preceding the day on which the interim custody order would, but for the direction, cease to have effect.
      (5) Not more than three directions under sub-paragraph (4) shall be given in respect of any one interim custody order.
      (6) A detention order shall be signed by the Secretary of State, and a direction under sub-paragraph (4) shall be signed by the Secretary of State or a Minister of State or Under Secretary of State.

      Supplemental
      9.—(1) The Secretary of State may at any time refer the case of a person detained under a detention order to an Adviser and, if so requested in writing in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) by a person so detained, shall do so within fourteen days beginning with the receipt of the request.
      (2) A person detained under a detention order shall not be entitled to make a request for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)—

      (a) before the expiry of the period of one year beginning with the date of the detention order; or

      (b) within a period of six months from the date of the last notification under sub-paragraph (5) below.

      (3) On any reference under this paragraph, an Adviser shall consider the case and report to the Secretary of State whether or not the person's continued detention is necessary for the protection of the public.
      (4) Paragraphs 6(3) and 7(2) to (4) shall apply for the purposes of a reference under this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of a reference under paragraph 5.
      (5) Where a case is referred to an Adviser in consequence of a request made in accordance with this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall, after receiving the report of the Adviser, reconsider the case of the person to whom it relates and, if he decides not to release that person, shall notify him of his decision.
      (6) A notification under sub-paragraph (5) shall be by notice in writing and signed by the Secretary of State.
      10.—(1) The Secretary of State may, as respects a person detained under an interim custody order—

      (a) direct his discharge unconditionally; or

      (b) direct his release (whether or not subject to conditions) for a specified period.

      (2) The Secretary of State may, as respects a person detained under a detention order—

      (a) direct his discharge unconditionally; or

      (b) direct his release subject to conditions or for a specified period, or both.

      (3) The Secretary of State may recall to detention a person released under sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (2)(b) and a person so recalled may be detained under the original interim custody or detention order, as the case may be.
      (4) Where a person is released under sub-paragraph (1)(b), any period during which he is not in detention shall be left out of account for the purposes of paragraphs 5(1), 6(2), and 8(3).
      11.—(1) A person required to be detained under an interim custody order or a detention order may be detained in a prison or in some other place approved for the purposes of this paragraph by the Secretary of State.
      (2) A person for the time being having custody of a person required to be detained as aforesaid shall have all the powers, authorities, protection and privileges of a constable.
      (3) Subject to any directions of the Secretary of State, a person required to be detained as aforesaid shall be treated as nearly as be as if he were a prisoner detained in a prison on remand and any power of temporary removal for judicial, medical or other purposes shall apply accordingly.
      (4) A person required to be detained as aforesaid who is unlawfully at large may be arrested without warrant by any constable or any member of Her Majesty's forces on duty.
      12. Where a person required to be detained under an interim custody order is unlawfully at large, the interim custody order shall not cease to have effect under paragraphs 5 or 8 while he remains at large; and, upon his being taken again into custody, those paragraphs shall have effect as if the date of the interim custody order were that of his being taken again into custody.
      13. Any person who—

      (a) being detained under an interim custody order or detention order, escapes;

      (b) rescues any person detained as aforesaid, or assists a person so detained in escaping or attempting to escape;

      (c) fails to return to detention at the expiry of a period for which he was released under paragraph 10(1)(b) or (2)(b); or

      (d) knowingly harbours any person required to be detained under an interim custody order or detention order, or gives him any assistance with intent to prevent, hinder or interfere with his being taken into custody,

      is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine or both.
      14.—(1) Any document purporting to be an order, notice or direction made or given by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Schedule and to be signed in accordance with this Schedule shall be received in evidence and shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to be duly made or given and signed.
      (2) Prima facie evidence of any such order, notice or direction may, in any legal proceedings, be given by the production of a document bearing a certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State stating that the document is a true copy of the order, notice or direction; and the certificate shall be received in evidence, and shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to be duly made and signed.
      15. The Secretary of State may make such payments to persons released or about to be released from detention under this Schedule as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.'.
      Mr. MacKay: The new schedule and the new clause would, quite simply, return internment to the statute book. Let me say immediately that I do not necessarily see the need for internment at present, and I do not necessarily advocate internment at any particular time. However, I sleep easier in my bed, and I think that the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic do as well, knowing that internment is readily available for the Secretary of State at any given time.
      The House will be aware that from this Dispatch Box, I, and others, rigorously opposed the Government's decision, nearly two years ago, to remove internment from the statute book. We thought that that was ill advised, ill conceived and unnecessary. We have since noted that our

      335
      friends in the Republic have not followed suit. Internment remains on the statute book in the Republic of Ireland, and rightly so.
      Let me briefly explain why I believe that it is in the interests of all law-abiding people that the Secretary of State, in extremis, has recourse to internment. I know that the Minister of State, who will be replying to this debate, will agree with me that we all hope and pray that the process moves forward. It is going through a difficult period at present, but we have had choppy water before, and we will have it again. We hope that in the not-too-distant future there will be a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. We hope that that lasting peace will include the paramilitaries—both so-called loyalist and republican—and their political parties, which signed up to the Belfast agreement, renouncing violence for good, decommissioning all their illegally held arms and explosives and playing their full role in the democratic process: that would include being Members of the Assembly and, in the case of Sinn Fein, resuming their ministerial positions in the Executive.
      If those happy circumstances were to occur, history dictates that almost certainly splinter groups, both so-called loyalist and republican, would break away and say that the cause had been let down. They would not join the process and would not give up violence.
      In the last few weeks, by and large, the guns have been silent and there is no certain evidence that those who signed up to the Belfast agreement have resumed serious violence. We know that there have been beatings, mutilations and kneecappings, but let us leave those to one side for the moment. There have not been other terrorist acts by those who signed the Belfast agreement. [Interruption.] I am very happy to give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), but I would prefer that he did not intervene from a sedentary position.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Has the right hon. Gentleman acquitted the Ulster Volunteer Force of the two murders in Armagh?
      Mr. MacKay: That will be for the security forces and the judiciary to decide. No one has been convicted of those crimes yet.
      I am saying that the guns of the mainstream paramilitaries are silent at present. Long may that continue, but the splinter groups are very active. As we know, and as the Minister and his security advisers will confirm, Continuity IRA was responsible for a bomb that could have killed many people in Irvinestown only a few weeks ago. Mercifully, attempts on two separate Army barracks, at Ballykelly and at Dungannon, were thwarted. If the security forces had not been vigilant, there could have been a huge loss of life.
      If the process reaches a happy and logical conclusion, those splinter groups will become even more aggressive and violent. They will be capable of destabilising the process. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State and his opposite number south of the border may well think it wise to reintroduce internment temporarily. I will not second-guess whether they would be wise to do so, because we will not know the exact circumstances until they happen. I am convinced that that rather blunt
      336
      instrument, which did not work in the 1970s but worked extremely well in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s and in the 1957–62 campaign, and was used effectively by both the De Valera and the Lemass Governments in the south, is worth having in any Government's armoury.
      The previous Secretary of State foolishly said, "Don't worry. I will reintroduce legislation on internment if necessary." That was one of the more preposterous suggestions that she made at the Dispatch Box. Clearly, internment works only if there is an element of surprise. If internment is on the statute book, it can be used at extremely short notice. Primary legislation—even emergency legislation—takes time, as you are aware Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Finally, the men of violence would certainly sleep less easily at night if they believed that internment was possible. They would be constantly on the run, under threat and destabilised and surely hon. Members on both sides of the House would want that. Therefore, I urge the House to make good the Government's mistake in taking internment off the statute book and to return through this legislation by supporting the new clause and the new schedule.
      Mr. Lembit Öpik: I apologise for missing the first couple of minutes of the speech of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). I spoke with the right hon. Gentleman before the debate and had a clear picture of what he intended to do, and I understand his reasoning.
      The Liberal Democrats take a different view on the issue. While I understand the right hon. Gentleman's logic and his argument that Ireland still has internment, which is correct, the act of using it in Northern Ireland in the 1970s was tremendously provocative. If we reintroduce it now, we will be sending all the wrong signals to Northern Ireland, especially to the nationalist communities.
      The right hon. Gentleman correctly said that surprise was an important element in the use of internment. However, to reintroduce it to the Northern Ireland environment at this time would be a very active step and might be detrimental because of the tensions that it would generate in the nationalist communities. More tensions are the last thing that we need while the Assembly is suspended. As the right hon. Gentleman noted, internment did not work in the 1970s. In our judgment, it would not work in the current Northern Ireland environment—even if there were to be a further deterioration of the situation.
      The right hon. Gentleman prefaced his comments with many "ifs". It is true that if those circumstances occurred, the security situation would be serious. At that point, we should have to consider what to do about it. However, my fear is that if we were to introduce internment, it would prompt some of those "ifs" into reality. It would provide some of the hardliners in paramilitary organisations with the opportunity to point at Westminster and claim that there had been a breakdown in faith through the reintroduction of practices that were almost universally condemned as detrimental to the Northern Ireland political environment in the 1970s.
      Although Ireland retains internment on its statutes, that does not provide an accurate comparison because in Northern Ireland, internment means something different. Furthermore, it is regarded as a clumsy and fairly ineffective means of state—or Westminster—control over nationalists.

      337
      I hope that the matter will not go to a vote, but if there were to be a vote on the new clause, my party and I will be obliged to support the Government.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: In supporting the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), I should like to go back to those halcyon days when I was young, and when one or two Ministers had less grey hair. In 1972, Operation Motorman brought about the introduction of internment in Northern Ireland. Many of my friends were involved in that operation, although I was still a callow youth at university. When I was in Belfast in 1975, internment was still much on people's minds, because it had ended only within the previous nine months.
      In 1972, internment was not a success—apart, perhaps, from the fact that it provoked support for the terrorists. However, that does not condemn it for ever as a legitimate weapon in the anti-terrorist armoury. On my subsequent visits to Northern Ireland, I found that most people involved in security and in keeping the peace said that it was useful to keep internment in the back locker. Terrorists are frightened of the idea of internment; key people can be locked up for a long time with no justification, thereby ruining terrorist operations.
      Internment failed in 1972 because the intelligence that led to the arrest of many people—almost wholly from the nationalist community—was hopeless and out of date. That was what stirred up so many members of the nationalist community and provoked support for the IRA. However, that does not mean that a time could not come when one had sufficient intelligence to nobble top terrorists and remove them from the streets, while one carried out some political activity or sorted out security arrangements.
      Despite that lack of success in 1972, the subsequent 28 years have shown us that great strides have been made in the improvement of intelligence and in the knowledge of who, and where, the terrorists are. In 1972, the personnel of Operation Motorman were knocking at the doors of houses that had been boarded up for months or years. They arrested the wrong people; they had no intelligence—frequently, they did not even have photographs. However, things are now much better.
      The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said that the reintroduction of internment would send the wrong messages. However, removing it from the statute book—as we did in 1997, against Conservative opposition—sent entirely the wrong message: that there might never be another occasion on which one might want to lock up dangerous and unpleasant terrorists who had been killing people and against whom one could not, perhaps, obtain a conviction in court.
      Mr. Öpik: All the legal powers still exist—they are open to the police and the security forces—to apprehend individuals who are regarded as a threat.
      Mr. Robathan: Yes, indeed. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that we can hold people, only in Northern Ireland, for 72 hours.
      Mr. Öpik indicated assent.
      Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman confirms my belief.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: Under this legislation, one could possibly hold them for a week.
      Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his knowledge of the situation.
      Both hon. Gentlemen who intervened will know that hardened terrorists shrug their shoulders at the prospect of being held for a week by the RUC. They eat rather better than they might have done otherwise; they have a break from alcohol and perhaps from cigarettes. They do not get roughed up, as is occasionally alleged, and these days they have a pretty easy time, although I accept that perhaps that was not always true in the past.
      My point is that one day we may need to be able to arrest known terrorists and keep them in detention indefinitely. The message that we are sending by not having internment is that we do not think that there can ever be circumstances in which we will have to return to such action. That sends all the wrong messages to the terrorists, who believe that, yet again, the British Government are giving up more of their powers and their ability to deal with terrorism. Terrorism does not affect most of us in this room, but it affects deeply and permanently the few people who live in Northern Ireland, and it changes the pattern of life of all the communities in Northern Ireland.
      Internment was one weapon against terrorists, and I very much regret that it is not on the statute book. I applaud the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell in trying to bring back internment in the Bill, because it would be welcomed by all those who want peace and an end to the troubles in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I had not intended to speak on the new clause, but lest my earlier intervention be interpreted as a desire to pick a fight with the mover of the new clause, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), I want to clarify my position. I entirely support the new clause, and I do so as someone who opposed internment in 1972 and whose party also did so.
      I intervened because I am concerned that we often allow terrorist organisations—which now operate a no claim, no blame policy—literally to get away with murder. Everybody knows that the Provisional IRA has been guilty of a number of killings, including the killing of Charles Bennett. However, if we apply the same criteria as the right hon. Gentleman did, we cannot make that assumption because no one has been charged, even though all the intelligence available to the RUC leads it to that conclusion.
      The dogs in the street know full well that the Provisional IRA killed Charles Bennett and a number of others. Equally, they know that the UVF killed the three Quinn children and that UVF members were involved in the killing of two young men in County Armagh. We should not attempt to protect terrorist organisations from the condemnation of the community by allowing them to hide behind the policy of not claiming their acts and therefore getting away with them.
      We should take account of the written answers on 17 February to several questions seeking information

      339
      about the number of terrorist actions since the so-called "peace process" began. The first question asked:
      how many people … have been (a) shot and (b) mutilated by terrorists since the Good Friday Agreement.—[Official Report, 17 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 617W.]
      The Minister of State replied that 155 had received gunshot wounds, 456 had been injured in explosions and 1,811 had been injured under the heading "Other", giving a total of 2,422.
      When asked specifically about attacks on the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Minister said that there had been 23 attacks by firearms, 45 by explosives, 2,348 by missiles including petrol bombs, six assaults and 279 attacks under the heading "Other". That is a total of 2,901 attacks on the RUC. On the question of the number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks, the Minister said that republicans were responsible for 46 shootings and 88 assaults, and so-called loyalists were responsible for 79 shootings and 172 assaults.
      All that shows that there have been thousands of incidents, which in any other community would be recognised as terrorist related, at a time when we are told that there is a peace process. No one in the House should fool themselves into believing that those incidents are entirely the result of dissident groups. Some of them may well be due to dissidents, but the majority of those attacks are taking place under the direction of the main paramilitary organisations, which have declared a ceasefire.
      The Opposition are right to table the new clause, and it deserves support. As I said, I opposed internment in 1972. It was ham-fisted and it was carried out at a time when insufficient up-to-date information and intelligence were available to the security forces. I agree entirely with the policy of selective internment, of which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and I have approved for many years. Under that policy, the security forces can, on the basis of firm information available to them, pick up ringleaders if there is no other course through the normal rule of law. In those circumstances, internment is justifiable.
      The new clause does not even ask for the introduction of internment, so there should be no alarm in the Chamber. It asks only that the instrument be available if the circumstances merit its use. It deserves the support of the House. Internment would be a weapon available to the security forces, should circumstances dictate its need. However, as an instrument it is useless unless there is a will on the part of the Government to take whatever measures are necessary against terrorist organisations.
      I do not find that the Government have the will to deal with terrorist organisations. That will can be demonstrated by introducing measures under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Under that Act, the Government could take action today, because it places on the Secretary of State a duty to stop any further prison releases if an organisation is not co-operating fully with the decommissioning body. General de Chastelain has indicated in writing to the Government that the IRA is not co-operating with the decommissioning body, and, on that basis, the Secretary of State should be taking action. He should consider other criteria that, on their own, allow him to take action.
      340
      The Government refuse to do that because their policy is to appease terrorism, do a deal with terrorism and reach agreements with terrorism. That is the weakness in their whole policy. When dealing with terrorism, there is only one policy that works—zero tolerance. The Government do not adopt that policy; their policy is one of appeasement.
      Mr. McNamara: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but I find the last words of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) appalling. I do not believe that appeasement is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, any more than I believe that it was the policy of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) or his successors, as they sought to bring the terrible tragedy of Northern Ireland to a peaceful conclusion. I therefore rebut the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
      I think that I am the only Member now in the Chamber who was a Member of this place when internment was introduced. I am certain that I am the only Member now in the Chamber who voted against it after we had an opportunity to debate it. I voted against it along with about 100 Labour colleagues, because we felt that internment was wrong.
      We are fighting people who refuse to accept the concept of the rule of law. We shall not defeat them by ourselves doing away with the rule of law; we shall defeat them by bringing people before properly constituted courts and putting them on trial, where their guilt or innocence will be proved.
      I find it strange that people forget the debacle of 1971, when internment was introduced. They seem to go back to the halcyon days of 1956 to 1962, or some others. They do not accept, or they refuse to accept, that the campaigns in those days were very different from what was happening in Northern Ireland in 1968, after the attempts to crush the civil rights movement by the then Stormont Government.
      The earlier campaigns were inspired mainly by those outside the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. The present campaign, whether we like it or not, is mainly indigenous to Northern Ireland. That makes it very different. When the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), accepted the advice of Brian Faulkner that internment was the answer, that led to the tragedy of it becoming an enormous recruiting office for the Provisional IRA. Secondly, it was an anti-internment march that led to Bloody Sunday. Thirdly, there was the handling of the hunger strikers. Those three classic mistakes between them managed to inspire the Provisional IRA, and enabled it to draw recruits into its camps at times when it was not having the support of very many people in the community of the north of Ireland.
      I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) tabled the new clause. The circumstances as described by him and by the hon. Member for Belfast, East are similar to many circumstances that existed in Northern Ireland after the Government of the now Lord Callaghan phased out internment. With the legislation on the statute book, they could have reintroduced internment at any time if they had wanted to. They chose not to do so because they realised the psychological impact that internment would have if it were reintroduced in Northern Ireland.

      341
      It is easy to say that the dogs in the street know who is guilty. The problem is that we have not yet been able to translate the barking of the dogs into English, so we do not have the evidence. If everybody knows, why do we not have the evidence? Once we start a process of doing things on the basis of suspicion and saying, "This is our evidence", we are on a slippery slope right along the line. Moreover, we would have to derogate from the European convention on human rights, which I understood the Opposition supported when its provisions came before the House, especially article 5—the right to a fair trial and that there should be lawful arrest and detention only. That means that a person is arrested or detained so as to bring him before a properly constituted court, as is laid down in article 5.
      We would be in real difficulty if, for even one moment, we were to consider doing what the Opposition suggest that we do. We are right to congratulate the Government on keeping the undertaking that they gave the Opposition that we would repeal the internment provisions and would not put them back on the statute book.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I do not think that any Conservative Member has worked harder than my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) to try to advance what the Government are trying to do in Northern Ireland, and to offer support for that. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) for reminding us of some of the circumstances in Northern Ireland, but the truest words were spoken by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
      Most of us in England—or in this country, England, Scotland and Wales—grapple even to begin to understand the dilemma, the hatreds and the causes that have brought Northern Ireland to the centre of everyone's attention. Yet the truth is that we are a land of liberty. This is a great democracy and we struggle and thrash around in the face of irreconcilables. What does one do when people do not accept the authority of the words or views of a state's citizenry? It is a true dilemma that seems to be more immediate and more urgent across the surface of the globe.
      The history of detaining people by internment has, by and large, been very unhappy throughout the globe. If anything, it concentrates the passions on both sides. I follow the argument of the hon. Member for Hull, North, which is rare, when he says that the process of law and the rule of law is what we are about.
      Mandating and detention depend on knowledge, but knowledge without the standards of proof that would bring people to court. These processes are bedevilled by the informer, and sometimes the paid informer. As often as not, they provide the opportunity for settling old scores. Over the years, we have seen that awful injustices have been done when informers have been employed. The intent is to pacify and remove from society a danger and a threat. However, let us reflect on our own circumstances, because our appreciation of liberty and the rule of law must derive from how we would react if we were placed in circumstances where, through malignancy, people gave false information about ourselves. The circumstances could be construed in such a way as to give, however fleeting it may subsequently turn out to be, some
      342
      appearance of reality. Would we not be enraged if our son, our brother or a member of our family were incarcerated by that means?
      By and large, decent people take the judgments of the courts and the authority of Government to indicate that the individual so identified is naturally, rightly and effectively detained. I am extremely unhappy about setting aside—
      Mr. Ken Maginnis: Is the hon. Gentleman not arguing from the specific to the general? Is it not the case that people have been convicted through the courts, at times—rarely, thankfully—on the basis of false information? Is it any more likely that those who are leading terrorist organisations would be wrongly interned if internment were introduced? Where is the difference between the protection of society through internment and through the courts when it comes to that odd case of wrong information?
      Mr. Shepherd: My fear about the processes of detention used under provisions such as the new clause and the new schedule is that the powers granted are general. A court specifically identifies through due process the case for the prosecution and the case for the defence; by and large, society has trusted that process for a long time. The history of detention is unsatisfactory, unhappy and, in some cases, tragic.
      Mr. Harold Best: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the potential for internment opens up the possibility of a presumption of guilt being made? Does he also agree that those who are interned might be regarded by some as either guilty or very guilty, and that that would have more to do with the weight of evidence rather than the quality of evidence involved? Does not justice stand on the quality of evidence?
      Mr. Shepherd: I notice that, in the new schedule, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell allows for the intermediation of an adviser. If I understand it correctly, the adviser is to play an almost judicial role. If so, my argument is that the due processes of court should be used.
      Mr. McNamara: Is not the whole point of the adviser to ensure that the person interned does not see the evidence against him, and so is not in a position to refute it? Even though representations may be made to the adviser, he sees only one side of the case, and the burden of evidence is not seen by the person who is interned. On the question of errors made in court, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if such errors are made—many have been—society recognises that and, to the extent that it can, compensates those who have been wrongly accused and later had their conviction quashed?
      Mr. Shepherd: Yes, but internment is generally used against a whole class of people—it does not result from individual assessment and weighing of evidence. From that usage emerge great tensions and hatreds—one need only look at the example of the Boer war to realise that. Across the world, we have seen the containment of sections of populations and witnessed how the hatred and revulsion already present in the community so detained is clarified by the act of general internment.
      I do not imagine that the powers in the new clause and new schedule will be used, but it is important that we understand that the history of internment can give us no

      343
      confidence in its utility—nor can the need to rely on informers, sometimes paid informers, or the appreciation that the information given is often provided for reasons other than to serve justice. The truth in life and democracy is that, even if a man or woman has been convicted in the past of an act that we loathe, that does not mean that that individual is guilty of that with which he or she is subsequently charged, independent of the original act.
      Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and typically high-principled argument, but it is important that we understand the circumstances in which internment might be used. I have said before that I do not like internment, but I understand from newspaper reports—I do not necessarily believe them—that the head of the Garda in the Republic has said that he knows perfectly well who the Omagh bombers are, but that he cannot convict them. Yes, the process uses informers, which is unpleasant, and of course some people will be wrongly interned, as they have been in the past; but when one sees the reasons why witnesses will not stand up and testify against murderers such as the Omagh bombers—those reasons being intimidation and threats of murder and maiming—one has to face up to the fact that internment, preferably not used, might be a weapon worth having.
      Mr. Shepherd: I do not doubt that the head of the Garda is a sincere and honourable man, but I have heard of many people who have asserted that they know all manner of things—they know the guilt of others. However, our process is not about individuals knowing the guilt; we require a higher standard than that.
      That is the crisis the House always faces when it deals with terrorism. We fear terrorism because it strikes at the very existence of Parliament, and in our fear we reach for instruments. However, we do so in advance of events. The powers in the new clause and new schedule are meant to be reserve powers, to be used if necessary. My point is that that is not necessarily appropriate or helpful. The notion that we can take the power to confine people based on the assertion, "I know it's them", is an extraordinarily draconian response. In a democracy such as ours, such a power should be invoked only in time of war, when the very survival of the nation is at stake.
      I defer to those hon. Members who represent the people of Northern Ireland. Mine must appear a highly abstract argument to those who are confident that they know who the bad ones are and who face them every day. Perhaps they are right, but the House should require a higher standard than that. That is why I am extremely cautious about the new clause and the new schedule.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I start by saying that if my voice gives up in the middle of my speech it is because I have been suffering from flu for the past few days; I may have to pause now and then to take a sip of water.
      Because of its history, internment is an extremely sensitive issue on both sides of the Irish border, as our short debate has shown. I have listened carefully to the debate, which touched on some profound issues.
      I shall deal first with the points raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who repeatedly makes the charge that the Government are involved in a
      344
      form of appeasement of terrorism. I can rebut that by pointing out that there are 15,000 British soldiers and more than 12,000 RUC officers in Northern Ireland. They are not involved in appeasement. They are acting according to the wishes of the Government and to protect human rights and human life.
      When the hon. Gentleman makes such allegations against the Government, he never offers anything positive. A genuine democrat would set out the way forward, but the hon. Gentleman never does that. All he does is spray around allegations, label people as criminals without evidence, and charge the Government with appeasement. There is no foundation for his allegations and I ask him to reflect on those brave men and women who serve in Northern Ireland in the armed forces and the RUC. They do not see themselves as appeasers—[Interruption.] As usual, the hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position: I shall give way if he wishes to intervene.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Minister referring to the "chinless wonders" mentioned by the Secretary of State?
      Mr. Ingram: We are trying to have a serious debate, but the hon. Gentleman is dragging it down. I do not know whether he was present at today's Question Time when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressed his regret about having made that comment. I believe he described it as a gaffe; well, everyone makes gaffes. The hon. Member for Belfast, East makes gaffes whenever he makes his allegations against the Government and against the brave men and women who serve in Northern Ireland.
      6 pm
      Mr. Robathan: This is a serious point. I do not necessarily accuse the Government of appeasement, although I am pretty worried about it from time to time. The Minister prays in aid the brave men and women serving in the RUC and the Army. I can tell him that in the autumn, when the present Secretary of State took over, three battalions of Foot Guards out of five were serving in Northern Ireland under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I can tell him categorically that they are fed up with what he said at the weekend. It may have been a flippant gaffe, but it reveals a lot about the Secretary of State's thinking.
      Similarly, enforcing all the Patten commission's recommendations is undermining the morale of the brave men and women of the RUC—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a little too far from the new clause.
      Mr. Ingram: I am prepared to defend the Secretary of State in all that he is trying to do to achieve peace. All his energy is directed at trying to bring about a new future for Northern Ireland. He has apologised for that comment, and we should let the matter rest. To return to it constantly serves no useful purpose.
      If it were in order, I would also be prepared to debate the Patten report and the way in which that was envisaged in the Good Friday agreement, which I thought the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) supported. As usual, he wants to cherry pick. He supports the bits with which he agrees, and rejects the rest. We cannot move forward on that basis.

      345
      The Government acknowledge that different views on internment are held by people inside and outside the House who have Northern Ireland's best interests at heart. However, the Government stand firmly by their position, because we have yet to be convinced that internment represents an effective policy in Northern Ireland at the beginning of the 21st century.
      Right hon. and hon. Members are aware that executive detention powers were removed from the statute book during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998. The issue was further debated that same year in the context of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which was passed in the wake of the Omagh bomb.
      It may be helpful if I refer to the Prime Minister's words on that occasion. He said:
      We had to make a judgment about internment. We have made it clear that we do not rule anything out for ever, but my judgment is that the history of internment as it operates here and in the Irish Republic is different.
      All the way through, we are trying to take carefully targeted measures that allow us to deal with these terrorist groups, but do not provoke such a backlash in other parts of the community that they undermine the fight that we are trying to secure. I agree that that is a matter of judgment, but that is our judgment; although, as I say, we rule nothing out for the future, should things be necessary.—[Official Report, 2 September 1998; Vol. 317. c. 697–8.]
      The case presented by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) for the Opposition was predicated on the possibility or even the probability of failure. He argued, as he has done previously, that the peace process, which he genuinely wants to reach a successful conclusion, could none the less have certain ramifications, such as the fragmentation of the paramilitary groups.
      If we send out a message that fragmentation is inevitable and that it will be on such a scale that we will have to take such punitive action in the future, the right hon. Gentleman is implying the failure, not the success, of the peace process. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that he is being realistic, but we must deal with the implications.
      Under the Good Friday agreement, the Government are committed to moving towards normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland as quickly as possible, consistent with the level of threat. That includes the removal of Northern Ireland specific temporary legislative powers as soon as it is safe to do so. Obviously, the reintroduction of internment, even if its immediate use were not advocated, would be a negative step in the context of that objective.
      I believe that those who advocate the return of the powers proposed in the new clause have a responsibility to be frank and tell the House when they would propose using them and against whom. There are a number of profound questions which it is right to pose at this point. How would those who argue for the return of internment guarantee that those powers would be used against the right people? On what basis would people be rounded up?
      The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) spoke about malicious information. People could be rounded up wrongly and interned as a consequence. Intelligence is not necessarily perfect. We cannot always guarantee that the information available to us would stand up in a court of law. We may have well-founded suspicions and a good knowledge base, but they may not stand examination in court.
      346
      The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) pointed out that the law courts could get it wrong. If the courts get it wrong, it is more likely that, as the hon. Member for Aldridge—Brownhills commented, executive detention provisions would get it wrong as well.
      Let us consider that possibility. What would be the consequences for civil order in Northern Ireland? Everyone admits that the last time internment was used, it failed. Now some argue that it would be more likely to succeed because of better intelligence. However, they forget about the reaction within the community from which people would be swept up.
      Those who argue for the reintroduction of internment must tell us what would be the consequences for civil order and the implications for the peace process, which would be in the process of evolution. In advocating that approach, the right hon. Member for Bracknell must deal with those questions.
      There is a further fundamental question. Do those who advocate internment genuinely believe that its introduction at this stage will help the peace process? Will it assist the republican and loyalist communities if those who advocate a peaceful progress towards democracy and away from violence now acknowledge the possibility of failure somewhere down the line? The right hon. Gentleman must answer that. Does he believe that the new clause would help the peace process or deflect us from it? He did not deal with that in his contribution.
      It is important that we legislate on the basis of a reasoned assessment of the security situation. We are not in the business, and Government should never be in the business, of legislating for hypothetical situations. Unless there is a clear-cut case for taking the powers suggested, to do so would be a backward step now or in the foreseeable future.
      Mr. Maginnis: The Minister has access to enough high-grade intelligence to know that the Real IRA was responsible for the Omagh bomb, and that a man called McKevitt is the leader of the Real IRA. How will the Minister deal with the terrorist organisation that McKevitt is putting together, before that organisation, made up of cells, is so big and so efficient that the whole of society is once again in jeopardy? He must address that question, side by side with the question of internment.
      Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is right about the level of intelligence that I receive. With the exception of the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), I receive the highest level of intelligence in the House. However, I will not confirm or deny that intelligence, or confirm the allegations of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone at the Dispatch Box, because I could thereby jeopardise any possible court action against individuals, or even groups if decisions on proscription or specification were made relative to other legislation.
      We have to tackle the new growth in dissident groups. That is a matter for the security forces, not politicians, although we have to deal with it in some forms. However, the criminal justice system—including the police, the prosecution authorities and the courts—ultimately and rightly brings people to justice, not politicians.
      I have tried to present counter-arguments. We had the same debate when the Government removed executive detention, known as internment, and on subsequent

      347
      occasions. We have returned to the subject because the right hon. Member for Bracknell and the Conservative party want to have the debate without proving conclusively that they would achieve the objective that I share with the right hon. Gentleman—a peaceful future in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman must make his case on that point: will the new clause help or hinder the process? We conclude that it could hinder the process. The right hon. Gentleman has to prove that it would help the process. He has not done that. I therefore ask him not to press the new clause to a vote.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 330.

      Division No. 108]

      [6.11 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hamilton, Rt Ron Sir Archie

      Amess, David

      Hammond, Philip

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Hayes, John

      Atkinson, David (Bour"mth E)

      Heald, Oliver

      Baldry, Tony

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Beggs, Roy

      Horam, John

      Bercow, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Boswell, Tim

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Brazier, Julian

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Key, Robert

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      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

      Clappison, James

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Loughton, Tim

      Luff, Peter

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Corrnack, Sir Patrick

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Cran, James

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Day, Stephen

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Madel, Sir David

      Duncan, Alan

      Maginnis, Ken

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Evans, Nigel

      Maples, John

      Faber, David

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Fabricant, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fallon, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Flight, Howard

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Norman, Archie

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fraser, Christopher

      Page, Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Paterson, Owen

      Garnier, Edward

      Pickles, Eric

      Gibb, Nick

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      Prior, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Randall, John

      Gray, James

      Robathan, Andrew

      Green, Damian

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Greenway, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Ruffley, David

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      St Aubyn, Nick

      348

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Trend, Michael

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Viggers, Peter

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Walter, Robert

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wardle, Charles

      Spring, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wells, Bowen

      Steen, Anthony

      Whittingdale, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Swayne, Desmond

      Wilkinson, John

      Syms, Robert

      Willetts, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wishire, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Yeo, Tim

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Thompson, William

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Townend, John

      Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

      Tredinnick, David

      Mr. Keith Simpson.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Casale, Roger

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Alexander, Douglas

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Allen, Graham

      Chaytor, David

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Chidgey, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clapham, Michael

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Ashton, Joe

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Austin, John

      Clelland, David

      Baker, Norman

      Clwyd, Ann

      Ballard, Jackie

      Coaker, Vernon

      Barnes, Harry

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Cohen, Harry

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Coleman, Iain

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Colman, Tony

      Beith, RT Hon A J

      Connarty, Michael

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Corston, Jean

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Cotter, Brian

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cousins, Jim

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cranston, Ross

      Berry, Roger

      Crausby, David

      Best, Harold

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Betts, Clive

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Blackman, Liz

      Cummings, John

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Darvill, Keith

      Borrow, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davidson, Ian

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brake, Tom

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Breed, Colin

      Dawson, Hilton

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Doran, Frank

      Browne, Desmond

      Dowd, Jim

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Drew, David

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Burden, Richard

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Burgon, Colin

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Burnett, John

      Edwards, Huw

      Burstow, Paul

      Ennis, Jeff

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Flint, Caroline

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Flynn, Paul

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Cann, Jamie

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      349

      Gapes, Mike

      McCabe, Steve

      Gardiner, Barry

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gerrard, Neil

      Macdonald, Calum

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McDonnell, John

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McFall, John

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Godsiff, Roger

      McIsaac, Shona

      Goggins, Paul

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McNamara, Kevin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McWalter, Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McWilliam, John

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Grogan, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hanson, David

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Healey, John

      Maxton, John

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Meale, Alan

      Heppell, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Hesford, Stephen

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hill, Keith

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hope, Phil

      Moffatt, Laura

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moore, Michael

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hurst, Alan

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Morley, Elliot

      Illsley, Eric

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

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Jamieson, David

      Jenkins, Brian

      Mountford, Kali

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Mullin, Chris

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Oaten, Mark

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Öpik, Lembit

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pearson, Ian

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pendry, Tom

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pickthall, Colin

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

      Pike, Peter L

      Plaskitt, James

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pond, Chris

      Kidney, David

      Pope, Greg

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pound, Stephen

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Laxton, Bob

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Purchase, Ken

      Levitt, Tom

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Linton, Martin

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Livsey, Richard

      Rammell, Bill

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Rapson, Syd

      Lock, David

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Love, Andrew

      Rendel, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      350

      Rogers, Allan

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Rooney, Terry

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Ruane, Chris

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Timms, Stephen

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Todd, Mark

      Salter, Martin

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Sanders, Adrian

      Touhig, Don

      Sawford, Phil

      Trickett, Jon

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Shaw Jonathan

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Tyler, Paul

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Tynan, Bill

      Singh, Marsha

      Wallace, James

      Skinner, Dennis

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Watts, David

      Smh, Angela (Basildon)

      Webb, Steve

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Welsh, Andrew

      White, Brian

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

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

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Snape, Peter

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Soley, Clive

      Willis, Phil

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Winnick, David

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wise, Audrey

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wood, Mike

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Woolas, Phil

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Worthington, Tony

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stringer, Graham

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mr. Kevin Hughes and

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mr. Mike Hall.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 3

      EXPIRY OF PART VII
      '.—(1) This Part shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which it is brought into force.
      (2) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a provision of this Part shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. McNamara.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. McNamara: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Expiry and revival (No. 2)—
      '(1) This Act shall (subject to subsection (2)) cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which the Act is brought into force.
      (2) The Secretary of State may by order provide—

      (a) that a provision of this Act which is in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall continue in force for a specific period not exceeding five years;

      (b) that a provision of this Act shall cease to have effect;

      351

      (c) that a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding five years.

      (3) An order under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument; and no such order shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
      Amendment No. 143, in page 51, line 38, leave out Clause 111.
      Mr. McNamara: Later this evening, we shall debate the prevention of terrorism order for the last time, and my new clause draws attention to that. The lifespan of part VII, which deals specifically with Northern Ireland, is five years. That seems unacceptably long in the absence of a debate, which we have had in the past, to decide whether these extraordinary powers, or some of them, should be reconsidered or continued or repealed.
      My new clause proposes that part VII have effect for only a year, with the provision that the Secretary of State should be able to lift certain of its requirements at times. I do not believe that that is unreasonable. Had I had the time and thought more carefully, I should have drafted it to include a renewal order so that we could consider that matter. Unfortunately, I did not do so. Even so, we have the Government's undertaking that there will be an annual independent review of the Bill's operation, but we have not had an undertaking that the review will be debated. Nor have we had an undertaking that notice will be taken of the reviewers' suggestions on additions or deletions. In the past, proposed deletions have nearly always been ignored and proposed additions have always been seized on and included.
      If the Government have related part VII specially and specifically to Northern Ireland, it should be subject to statutory review. Northern Ireland is, sadly, an unhappy part of the country at present and specific legislation deals with the problems there. We hope that those problems will go away and that the Good Friday agreement will be implemented, but we should nevertheless examine the legislation, and very much so.
      An associated matter has been a disappointment. The criminal law review in Northern Ireland has progressed slowly. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office has said that he hoped that it would be completed either when we were dealing with the later stages of consideration of the Bill or before Easter, possibly in the other place. I do not hold it against him that it has not been completed, but I am concerned that we are passing legislation without having a proper opportunity to review it and without any undertakings being given about the Government's attitude to that review and what changes will be made in respect of part VII. That is the burden of my case.
      We are considering serious legislation specific to one part of the United Kingdom and the precedent has been that we examine such legislation every year. We should do so again. If my new clause does not meet the precise requirements, I am happy to leave it to my right hon. Friend to draft a fresh one for the other place, but I believe that the House would abdicate its responsibility if it did not at least provide for renewal orders relating to the implementation of the Bill.
      I believe that in happier days, when this legislation was first considered, we hoped that the Good Friday agreement would be implemented, and that—apart from
      352
      having to deal with a few dissidents—the legislation might disappear for ever. That may happen—I hope that it will—but, just in case it does not, we should have an opportunity to examine the way in which the legislation is dealt with, especially the parts introduced as a result of the terrible Omagh bombing.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), whom I am happy to follow, relates specifically to part VII—the Northern Ireland section that we debated in Committee with the Minister and some of our colleagues.
      I told the Minister and the Committee that it was our considered view that it was right for us to look forward to the early conclusion of special powers for Northern Ireland and right for those powers to be reviewed regularly on the basis of a report and the agreement of Parliament, but that we were happy for the end of the period concerned to remain unspecified for the moment. There is a backstop of five years. The Government would have to return to Parliament again if other existing legislation were repealed or changed once this law was enacted. We felt, however, that there must be a degree of flexibility.
      As the Minister may remember, since the Committee stage, I have visited Northern Ireland to talk to people about, specifically, aspects of the Bill that relate to the Province. I was pleasantly surprised and encouraged by the widespread view across the political parties and the community divides, and among senior members of the police service—and elsewhere—that action should be taken as quickly as possible to restore the normal processes of the court structure: hearings, trials and police procedures. They hoped that that would happen much sooner than in five years' time. No one argued to the contrary, which I found encouraging.
      New clause 8 concerns a linked but different issue. We have what is, in effect, renewable legislation. The Bill will introduce permanent legislation. Even after the courteous and reasonable debate in which we engaged with the Minister in Committee, my hon. Friends and I are not persuaded that we should move, all in one go, to a UK-wide Bill of a permanent nature.
      We are persuaded—indeed, we have always argued the case; I have argued it since I became my party's home affairs spokesman—that there should be UK-wide legislation, rather than legislation treating Northern Ireland separately from Great Britain. One of the reasons why I always thought that the old legislation was improper, and never voted for it, was the fact that it contained exclusion clauses, and treated citizens of one country as though they could be compartmentalised. We consider UK-wide legislation to be entirely proper, as the Minister knows.
      However, we consider it dangerous to table a Bill that is not just UK-wide but much more far-reaching, without giving Parliament a chance to bring it back to see how it is being implemented. New clause 8 suggests that, once enacted, the Act should cease to have effect five years after enactment without Parliament's approving its continuance. Its maximum length would therefore be the maximum length of a Parliament, although a Government could return to it before that. We think that such a safeguard is necessary.

      353
      I will not go into details, but we need to be particularly attentive about two actions that we are taking in the Bill. We are creating permanent UK anti-terrorism legislation, and we are extending its remit. We will discuss definitions later, but I am not talking just about what is defined as terrorism; I am talking about the definition of the powers given to the authorities of the state—the police, the courts, and others.
      Exceptional measures—steps towards the removal of liberty and the increasing of state powers—should be taken with great care in a democratic country. We have been careful and we are careful, but we are in danger of unwittingly not being careful if we suddenly sign up to legislation that will come back only if whichever party is in power brings it back, or if a majority in the House wants to bring it back. The new clause would enable all Members, from all parts of the United Kingdom, to debate the issue.
      Let me say a word particularly to my Northern Ireland colleagues, from whose expertise—exemplified by the contributions of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis)—we benefited during much of the Committee stage. Until Northern Ireland is at peace, which we pray will be soon, we must ensure that all of us—not just a corner of the House in which Northern Ireland Members talk to each other and to Northern Ireland Ministers—can learn from their experience.
      I think that subsection (2) deals with one of the two objections raised by the Minister in Committee. He suggested that the requirement for the Act as a whole to be brought back within five years was an inflexible tool. Subsection (2) would allow certain parts of the Act to be continued, certain parts to be discontinued, and certain parts that had been discontinued to be brought back. It is not inflexible: it is possible to look at each and every clause and to say, "This is right" and, "This is wrong."
      Of course, if we wanted to amend the legislation, there would have to be a process allowing that, but there is no reason why we could not do what we are doing today—coincidentally. There is no reason why we should not include in our debate both a Bill to amend existing legislation and an order to continue or discontinue part of it. It would be logical to do both at the same time.
      The Minister argued, perfectly reasonably, that we might need to act more quickly. In Committee, I said that I had been advised, and feared, that the Bill as drafted might contain breaches of the European convention on human rights, and that, if the European Court made a finding similar to its finding in the Bulger case in December, the Home Secretary would have to come to the House and announce a change in the law, or the procedure.
      That is, of course, true. At any stage, if there is a ruling against the Government that relates to legislation, the Government must come back to the House. Let me point out to the Minister, however, that the new clause does not suggest that the legislation can come back only every five years; it provides a backstop. Of course, if we find that, despite the Home Secretary's declaration on the front of the Bill, the Bill breaches the convention, it will have to come back earlier; but I hope that members of all parties will learn the lesson that we all painfully learned in two ways two years ago.
      After the Omagh bombing, which was painful enough in itself, we returned to the House for two days in September 1998 to pass yet more emergency legislation.
      354
      That was not good legislating, as anyone involved will recall. We legislated in haste, and, as Ministers confirmed in Committee, much of the legislation has never been used. Perhaps none of it has. That is the practical implication of what was done. Sometimes—indeed, nearly always—it is better to have a opportunity to consider, to reflect on what needs to be done and to take advice. In the case of this Bill, we have taken account of a report by Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and have consulted the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which was established by a governmental statutory body. It is certainly the commission's view that we should not have permanent legislation.
      Interestingly, in all my discussions in Northern Ireland last month, and without naming any individual—I talked to very senior representatives of the relevant parts of society—no one argued for permanent legislation. They said not only that there should not be permanent legislation in Northern Ireland—let alone in Great Britain—but that there was benefit in reviewable and renewable legislation.
      One person convincingly put the following argument to me. If we have special powers and there is a group in the community that feels that it is oppressed, troubled, or likely to be the targets of those powers, it is much better for the law and order agency—the police or armed services—to be able to say that those will be reviewed in time and are not a permanent part of the state, than for people to feel that there will be no opportunity for a review that is apart from the forces of law and order.
      Mr. Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Omagh bombing. Does he not accept that, at the time of the bombing, there was a great desire among the British and Irish Governments to work together as far as possible and to ensure that legislation on both sides of the border was consistent, so that people could not play the game of moving from one side to the other? Does he accept that that was one of the motivations that led to the legislation being introduced? Whether it was good legislation or not, does he at least accept that, at the time, the motives for introducing it were, effectively, to try to combat terrorist organisations that used the different jurisdictions to avoid detection or arrest?
      Mr. Hughes: I accept that. The hon. Gentleman is right.
      Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the courts in the Republic are now very reluctant to use that particular legislation and are not accepting the word merely of a senior police officer? They are looking for other things and more corroboration. We should not legislate in this country just to meet the needs of the Republic of Ireland. He might remember that, when these matters were discussed, Downing street's official spokesman issued statements saying that we did not need stronger legislation, as we already had all that we needed. All that we were doing was legislating to please the Irish Government and, incidentally, the Home Office and the Saudis.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. Both points raise an important issue. I was going to make a linked point. There is every benefit in being in touch with the Irish Government and the Irish Parliament and knowing

      355
      what they are thinking. There is clearly every benefit in compatible systems north and south of the border to deal with people who can easily go back and forth across the border every day.
      However, one of the reasons why we would be wrong to enact permanent legislation is that, at this very moment in Ireland, a review of the constitutional provisions is going on. It has not been concluded. It has touched on the Disqualifications Bill, which we considered in December and January.
      There is some sense both in retaining independence, so that we can do what we think is best for this country, and in at least trying to understand what is happening elsewhere and not anticipating something: the Republic may come to a different conclusion as a result of the review. The unanimous view in Northern Ireland was that we should not have permanent legislation. One of the things that seem to strengthen that case is that there is a review of the legislation in the Republic and that it would be helpful to be able to take changes into account. If we have permanent legislation on the statute book, by definition, we will not be able to look at the matter again in the light of what is going on in Ireland.
      6.45 pm
      One of the places that I went to when I was in Northern Ireland again recently was South Armagh, which has suffered as much as anywhere, if not more. There were clearly differences of view about some of the details of what is going on in terms of the whole settlement process in Northern Ireland, but on one thing there was no controversy: if we had an exceptional set of powers—which are clearly needed at the moment—the people of Northern Ireland, their representatives in this Parliament and in the Assembly should be able to play a part in discussing how they should be continued.
      Once we put something permanent on to the statute book, the chance of being able to have such a debate—involving Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly, listening to people in local government in Northern Ireland, talking to the Royal Ulster Constabulary—goes. It is locked in, and only the Government can press a button that unlocks it.
      I ask colleagues on both sides of the House, and the Government in particular, to think again about their view that we do not need reviewable legislation. The Minister offered a concession, or came forward with a proposal in Committee that was welcome—a periodic report on the legislation will be laid before Parliament, as happens now—but it does not go far enough. There is all the difference in the political world between a report that we can read and legislation that has to come to Parliament to continue, or to be altered. I urge the House as strongly as I can to vote for our new clause, in the hope that we get terrorism legislation that Parliament can keep regularly under review at least once every Parliament.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have some sympathy for the observations of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on the need for impermanent legislation. He called it renewable legislation.
      356
      I support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I listened carefully to what he said. He talked about an independent review, whereas the hon. Gentleman talked about a periodic report. I was not on the Committee, but an independent review sounds more powerful than a periodic report. If an independent review has been promised, that is reassuring.
      I agree with my hon. Friend that such a review should be debated in the House, so that all sorts of concerns can be raised. There are some powerful elements in this part. I mention three at a glance: clauses 97, 98 and 99, which deal with the independent assessor of military complaints procedures, the code of practice on police and Army powers and the code of practice on video recording respectively. A debate such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend would give us the opportunity to voice concerns about the imperfections of those clauses, or about where they could be strengthened or modified.
      It may not be feasible in parliamentary terms, but my view is that it would be better to submit such an independent report to a Select Committee for examination. A three-hour or five-hour debate in this place does not allow for the cross-examination of Ministers that a Select Committee hearing allows.
      With respect—it certainly does not apply to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—I have heard Ministers brush aside questions on important issues from the Opposition and others. That cannot be done within the framework of a Select Committee investigation. I am not suggesting for one moment that he conducted himself in that way when I questioned him, but I make a serious point. It is one that I made in relation to the Sierra Leone affair. I told the Foreign Secretary at the time that it was good that he had offered to make a statement from the Dispatch Box, but that it would be better for all concerned that that matter should be subjected to a Select Committee inquiry.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not think that I was arguing that we should not have an annual report or an opportunity for the matter to be taken before a Select Committee. The question is whether we also have the ability over a longer period—five years as opposed to every year—for Parliament to be able to make a positive decision that it wants the legislation, whole or in part, to go on. They are not incompatible.
      Dr. Godman: I am grateful for that clarification and reassurance. I thought that I was listening intently, but I must have strayed a little.
      If we are to have independent reviews, I believe that a Select Committee is a better instrument for monitoring the implementation of legislation, especially controversial legislation such as this Bill. Such legislation ought to be renewable rather than permanent.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned that he had been to South Armagh recently. I visited a police station in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) where the RUC officers are working extremely hard to develop good community relations in a nationalist community. It is essential that legislation does not impede that sort of remarkably fine work.
      I am asking for renewable rather than permanent legislation.
      Mr. Shepherd: I commend to the Government the purposes behind the new clauses. The Bill, as we all understand, gives extraordinary powers to the Executive. It is appropriate to have what is, effectively, a sunset clause—perhaps the Government can draft something suitable.
      I am a believer in sunset clauses. The House has too little opportunity on a general range of legislation to review its workings under the necessity of having to justify it. A sunset clause gives the Government an opportunity to explain their stewardship of these extraordinary powers. I say this gently because it is important that where such powers are available to the Executive they must justify their exercise of them. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for giving the House the opportunity to pause to consider an important point.
      Mr. Lidington: No one in the House would quarrel with the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for the Executive, whichever party happens to be in government, to be held to account for the exercise of the powers given to them by counter-terrorist legislation. These are far-reaching powers.
      The debate is about the most appropriate mechanisms for holding the Executive to account and subjecting Ministers to sustained questioning over their role as custodians of the legislation. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills have set out eloquently the case for the sunset clause.
      I should mention the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The Opposition are satisfied that the provisions already incorporated in the Bill in clause 11 I provide adequate safeguards in respect of the special powers for Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland alone. We are not persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's argument for new clause 3.
      New clause 8 was spoken to by the Liberal Democrats. The arguments for the sunset clause were powerful and well put and it would be wrong to dismiss them, but there is a compelling counter-argument. The first Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill was introduced by Lord Jenkin, then Home Secretary, in the immediate aftermath of the Birmingham bombings. Probably everybody assumed at the time that the powers would be needed only in respect of a crisis arising from terrorist violence in Northern Ireland, perhaps spilling over to the mainland of Great Britain. Everybody assumed that, within a few years, it would be possible to revert to normal criminal justice powers and legislation without the need for the special provisions. Sadly, that has not been the case. As the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) can testify, the need to be vigilant against terrorism in Northern Ireland remains to this day.
      Even if there were to be an established and enduring peace in Northern Ireland, there still remains a case for permanent counter-terrorist legislation. The first recommendation of Lord Lloyd when he summarised the conclusions of his review of counter-terrorist legislation was that
      When lasting peace is established in Northern Ireland there will continue to be a need for permanent anti-terrorist legislation.
      358
      He went on to argue—we will come to this in later amendments—that new legislation should apply not just to violence related to Northern Ireland but to terrorism throughout the United Kingdom, covering domestic as well as international terrorism.
      I fear that organised and ruthless terrorism is not some temporary feature of the political landscape but is endemic. We have seen examples of middle eastern terrorism which has, on occasions, spilled over into the United Kingdom and other European countries and we have seen what has happened in Tokyo. I can recall that, at the time of the Gulf war in the early 1990s, there were acute fears in this country that Saddam Hussein, in order to further his campaign, would seek to sponsor or promote acts of terrorism in allied capital cities so as to try to induce the populations there to withdraw support from the United Nation's alliance which was confronting him over Kuwait.
      Mr. Gordon Marsden: I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the assumptions in the 1970s when the prevention of terrorism legislation was introduced in the wake of the Birmingham bombings and his views on the on-going problem of terrorism. I do not disagree with him. However, in the context of new clause 3, is that not an argument, if not for a sunset clause, for some form of subsequent review of whether the powers as cast should be changed, revised or muted? After all, terrorism, even if it is a permanent feature of the landscape, is likely to change its form.
      7 pm
      Mr. Lidington: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the need for regular and thorough reviews of the legislation, but I doubt whether new clause 3 provides the best mechanism for such reviews. The Government have offered us an annual review. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government were minded to appoint an independent examiner—someone in the tradition of Mr. John Rowe and Lord Colville—to examine from an outsider's perspective the operation of legislation and to report to the Government. I should hope that, subsequently, the Government would ensure that the examiner's report was fully debated by both Houses of Parliament.
      Mr. Alan Simpson: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that one of the difficulties in Lord Lloyd's analysis of the matter was the failure to explore the difference between permanent counterterrorism legislation and renewable counter-terrorism legislation? The latter would maintain the House's rights and responsibilities to deal with the matter in primary legislation, and would also allow the Government of the day to get out of the other trap. In a world in which the character of terrorism changes as quickly as economic circumstances change, if we try to deal with the matter in permanent legislation, we will inevitably be forced towards adopting much too broad a definition of terrorism, thereby casting long and dark shadows over the nature of democratic society and open government. A sunset clause would get us out of that predicament.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. That intervention was far too long. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) could also perhaps deal with that matter in the debate on the next group of amendments.
      Mr. Lidington: The difficulty that I have with the argument being made, quite honourably, by the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) is that we could end up deluding ourselves into thinking that we were supporting counter-terrorism powers that were in a realistic sense temporary.
      We have to acknowledge that the character of the international political environment in which British Ministers, British security and intelligence agencies and British police officers have to take their decisions has changed, and that it has probably changed irrevocably. It has been a change for the worse, but we have to come to terms with that change. There will be a need for us not only to remain vigilant about how Ministers and officials exercise the powers that they have been given in statute, but to ensure that our legislative safeguards are kept up to date, so that we are able to respond to what I fear might be the proliferation among terrorist groups of yet more deadly weapons.
      Professor Wilkinson's report, which was appended to Lord Lloyd's, mentions the fact that, in the next few decades, chemical, nuclear or biological weapons might fall into the hands of terrorist groups which are prepared, if not to use them as such, to use them as instruments of blackmail and coercion. We have also to ensure that our legal arrangements are kept up to date with whatever new technologies become available to terrorist groups.
      The best way of approaching that issue is to build on the process of annual review, which the Government have offered to us; to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to demand of Ministers that they introduce amending legislation as and when it is demonstrated to be necessary; and, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, to use the Select Committee system that is available to us. I should certainly hope that not only the Intelligence and Security Committee, which would have an important role to play in the matter, but the Select Committees on Home Affairs and on Northern Ireland Affairs would interest themselves in the detail of how those powers are exercised in future.
      Coupled with the formal procedure of annual review and annual report that the Government have already offered, the Select Committees—with the interplay of question and answer that they allow, and their capacity to subject Ministers to sustained interrogation, rather than simply allowing them to make an introductory speech, and then wind up the debate, giving way as frequently or infrequently as they choose—are a better way of approaching the matter.
      For those reasons, I am not prepared to support this group of amendments.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: This has been a useful debate. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged, the issue was debated very fully in Committee. I am delighted to return to the subject now.
      360
      New clause 3 and amendment No. 143, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), would time-limit the Northern Ireland-specific provisions to one year. New clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), would provide for the expiry and revival of the Bill every five years. That provision is identical to the hon. Gentleman's new clause 2 in Committee, which we debated for 45 minutes, on 8 February.
      I shall deal with the detail of the two specific proposals. First, however, I should like to make a couple of general points about the role of Parliament in all this.
      As has been generously acknowledged by various speakers, the Government have sought to respond to the concerns expressed on Second Reading by establishing an annual report process, which was not in the Bill on Second Reading. We listened to comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and felt that there was merit in the case for producing an annual report.
      I can also confirm that we did, indeed, commit ourselves to that report being prepared by an independent person. The document would not be internal and secret but out in the public domain. I should like to place that commitment on record now—as I did in Committee—as it is helpful to do so.
      It is important that we should have a little discussion about Parliament's role in dealing with this form of accountability. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) used a good phrase—explanatory stewardship—to describe the role, and he was quite right about that. The question is how best stewardship can be explained. A wide range of parliamentary devices is available. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde mentioned Select Committees, which are the first possibility.
      As all hon. Members who have served on a Select Committee will know, the Select Committee process can indeed be far more effective than a general process in the House. One of my first duties after being elected to the House was to serve as a member of the Treasury Committee. I am sure that the Governor of the Bank of England would agree that the regular interrogation to which the Committee subjected him and the Monetary Policy Committee on their policy on setting interest rates was much more rigorous than a regular debate in the House, or some other process, would have been. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, we also have the Home Affairs Committee, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee. They are an important part of the process. The House also has the capacity for debate in a variety of forms—a short debate on the Adjournment, or a more substantial debate, such as we are having today.
      Contrary to the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, it is not the provision that will serve as a backstop, but this Parliament. If ever one wanted evidence that this Parliament has been a backstop in our consideration of such issues, one would only have to study the way in which legislation has been dealt with, often very rapidly, by the House. Although I take the point about consideration, the suggestion that there is any inflexibility in Parliament's ability to consider new legislation as circumstances change is simply not correct. It is a fact that over the years—in this as in other matters—Parliament has shown a tremendous readiness to

      361
      respond rapidly to the issues raised by changing events such as judgments by the European Court of Human Rights, or by more dramatic events such as bombs and explosions, which require issues to be dealt with differently.
      My response to the general discussion—before moving on to the particulars of the two proposals—is that it is quite wrong to describe Parliament as inflexible in its ability to address such questions. The reverse is true: Parliament has tremendous flexibility to achieve by a variety of different means the explanatory stewardship suggested by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. It would be unwise to opt for one constitutional straitjacket in seeking to address it.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Of course there is the flexibility that the Minister described. Can he confirm that clause 124, which provides for a report, does not necessarily trigger a parliamentary yes or no process? More important, looking back over any number of years, the two circumstances in which the Government come to the House to seek changes are when the are obliged by a court judgment to do so or when they are seeking more power. Governments do not readily seek to give up power even when there is a large clamour outside telling them they should do so.
      Mr. Clarke: I am not sure that that analysis is correct. In certain circumstances Governments seek the withdrawal of power as a result of events changing. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office suggests that that has happened recently in respect of the EPA.
      The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North are aimed at time-limiting the Northern Ireland- specific provisions to one year from the date on which they are brought into force. There would be no power to continue the provisions beyond that point—nor could a provision be brought back into force if it had been lapsed by order.
      I shall set out again the Government's position on the Northern Ireland-specific measures. I am happy to do so as it is very important. I emphasise strongly that the Government wish to move to the position where there are no Northern Ireland-specific measures. The aim of the Bill is to have a UK-wide approach to combating terrorism. We remain strongly committed to this—indeed the Good Friday agreement requires us to remove the emergency powers in Northern Ireland as soon as the security situation allows it. That is our intention and desire.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister of State made the point that the test of a normalised society is to achieve that common basis. That is what we seek to do. It is an important policy consideration.
      If I thought that the security situation would allow for that in one year's time, I would be delighted to accept the new clause. Of course I cannot predict the security situation in a year's time—and neither can anyone else. The key is flexibility. Clause 111, which amendment No. 143 seeks to remove, time-limits the part VII provisions to five years. It allows powers to be switched off by order and to be revived if it is proved they are needed.
      Let me deal with a specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North. He suggested that the temporary Northern Ireland provisions would remain on
      362
      the statute book for five years without the need for parliamentary approval. Clause 111 provides that part VII lapses after 12 months unless renewed by an affirmative resolution order for further periods of 12 months, up to a maximum lifespan of five years. That renewal will be informed by the annual report in all the ways that we know, and on the operation of the Act under clause 124. So there is a parliamentary approval process.
      Although I sympathise with the thrust of what my hon. Friend said, his amendments would tie the Government's hands to a degree that I cannot accept. There have been too many events reminding us of the terrible situation.
      My hon. Friend referred to the criminal review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assures me that it will be published soon, so as to enable further debate and consideration of these issues.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurances that the Government remain committed to dispensing with the part VII powers as soon as it is safe to do so and will not press his amendments further.
      7.15 pm
      We reject the proposal in the Liberal Democrat new clause for the same reasons that we rejected it in Committee. Lord Lloyd concluded:
      once lasting peace has been established in Northern Ireland, there will continue to be a need for permanent counter-terrorist legislation to deal with the threat of international and domestic terrorism.
      I referred in Committee, and I shall do so again today, to the extract from pages 4 to 5 of his report, in which he sets out the reasons—as clearly and eloquently as anyone has been able to do here. At paragraph 1.20, he states:
      From my interviews with the police, the Security Service and other counter-terrorism specialists in the UK and overseas, I am convinced it would be a mistake—indeed, that it would be folly—to assume that a few years of relative freedom from acts of international terrorism here meant that the threat had largely gone away. There are two reasons for that view.
      First, to measure the threat merely in terms of the number of planned attacks which have been carried out in the UK would be to ignore the substantial effort which goes on, largely in secret, to avert such incidents. Evidence which I have seen and heard, though I cannot set it out here, persuades me that, although the immediate threat is low, international terrorist groups continue to seek opportunities to carry out attacks against UK interests, at home and abroad.
      The second cause for caution is that developments in world politics and the changing nature of terrorism have made it difficult to predict what the future holds. Chapter 4 of Professor Wilkinson's report deals with some of these factors. Regional and national conflicts which have generated terrorism, or have the potential to do so, will continue throughout the foreseeable future. The complex problems in the Middle East and North Africa will remain the most important factor, not least because of the pronounced anti-Western position adopted by some of the parties involved. As the "weapon of the weak" terrorism is likely to remain an attractive option to those engaged in regional power struggles, facilitated by the ever-increasing international freedom of movement of people, goods and information. The UK, together with some other Western countries, is particularly liable to be caught up in these struggles because of the number of communities of foreign nationals who live, or seek sanctuary, here.
      That is a powerful argument. It is why the Government have accepted this central recommendation of the report.
      As we said in the consultation paper,
      the Government believes that there exists now a clear and present terrorist threat to the UK from a number of fronts and that a terrorist threat is likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future even when a lasting peace in Northern Ireland is achieved.

      363
      It gives me no pleasure to say that I believe that to be a frank assessment of the position on the basis of serious consideration and advice.
      We have had so-called temporary provisions on the statute book for 25 years. The time has come to face the fact of terrorism and be ready to deal with it for the foreseeable future. We need to make the powers permanently available, although the fact that those powers are available does not mean that they have to be used.
      The Bill removes some of the most extreme powers that have been used in the past, such as internment and exclusion orders, and introduces judicial extensions of detention.
      The Human Rights Act 1998 will be fully implemented by the time that the Bill comes into force. That is an important new safeguard.We are providing Parliament with an annual report to allow for full consideration of these issues. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who asked for that provision. There is a full opportunity to discuss the issues in great detail. I am sure that that will continue, and on that basis I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his new clause.
      Mr. McNamara: I accept what my hon. Friend said about part VII. It is only unfortunate that it does not apply to the rest of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 4

      RIGHT TO CONSULT SOLICITOR
      '.—(1) All persons detained under section 40 of this Act shall be promptly informed of their right to consult privately with a solicitor and to have a solicitor present at all interviews to be conducted under this Act.
      (2) All persons wishing to consult a solicitor must be permitted to do so as soon as is reasonably practicable.'.—[Mr. McNamara.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. McNamara: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 173, in clause 40, page 18, line 34, at end insert—
      '(3A) Where a person is detained under this section for more than 36 hours, a police officer shall state in writing the reasons for continuing to detain him.'
      Government amendments Nos. 60 to 64 and 67 to 69.
      Amendment No. 178, in schedule 7, page 109, line 9, at end insert—
      'and, subject to paragraph 19, shall be completed and the decision notified to the detained person within four hours of his arrest.'
      Government amendments Nos. 70 to 76, 96 to 99, 109 and 116.
      Mr. McNamara: The question of legal access is interesting, and it appears to be missing from the Bill. I want to assert the right of detained persons to have access to legal advice promptly, before the questioning starts.
      364
      The situation in Northern Ireland is especially problematic, as those arrested in Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts have, over the years, effectively been held under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 conditions. One former head of the Met said that anybody who was arrested under the PTA in his area would always be held under PACE conditions.
      The emergency provisions Act contains a provision allowing for deferral of access to a solicitor for up to 48 hours, which was used widely in Northern Ireland until the 1990s and is still occasionally used. Even when a suspect got access to a lawyer, the lawyer was not permitted to stay in the interview with the suspect, as is the case with PACE. There appears to have been no statutory basis for that exclusion, which resulted from Royal Ulster Constabulary policy and had not been subject to judicial review.
      The only occasion when the matter arose was in Murray v. United Kingdom, a case in Strasbourg, in which the applicant argued that the exclusion of his lawyer from the interviews constituted a violation of article 6, which concerns the right to a fair trial. The court did not express an opinion on that point, having already found a violation on the basis of deferral of access to Murray's solicitor, combined with the drawing of inferences from his silence. Its attitude to the exclusion of a solicitor is not clear, but it said:
      It is of paramount importance for the rights of the defence that an accused has access to a lawyer at the initial stages of police interrogation.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the current preferred thinking is that the refusal of access to a solicitor during an interview would be a breach of article 6.3 and that the court would rule against us, as it appears that the idea of a fair trial—equality of arms—is paramount and the right exists throughout the rest of the United Kingdom?
      Mr. McNamara: If I understood my hon. Friend correctly, I agree.
      Article 6.3, which should be enforced, does not appear in the legislation. I seek an undertaking that there will be access to a solicitor. That is implicit in the Bill, but not specific. I tabled the new clause in the hope that, when their Lordships in one place or another read our debates to see what was intended, a statement from the Front Bench will be on the record.
      Mr. Harry Cohen: I want to speak mainly to amendments Nos. 173 and 178, although I would also like to say a word about Government amendment No. 64.
      Clause 40 concerns arrest without warrant. Liberty issued a briefing note for our Second Reading debate. It said:
      The Government intends to retain the arrest powers of the PTA which entitle the police to arrest without warrant anyone who they have reasonable grounds for suspecting. Liberty has long been concerned about the existence and operation of this power and considers that it should not he retained for the following reasons:
      it is unnecessary: there is no evidence that the PACE powers of arrest are inadequate.
      it is too wide: it permits a police officer to arrest where the person is not suspected of committing any offence …

      365
      powers have been used in the past simply as an intelligence gathering device.
      These points are particularly important in view of the widened definition of terrorism.
      That is quite a critique of the power, on the use of which amendment No. 173 is designed to put only a small restraint.
      I am concerned about people being held incommunicado. One of my first cases as a Member of Parliament, in the 1980s, was when a constituent came to my advice surgery and reported that she had been to the police because she thought that her son had disappeared and she wanted to report the fact and get their help to find him, but it later transpired that the police were holding him and had not informed her. That was a dreadful abuse of civil liberties.
      The police have increasing powers to hold people, but the rights of both the person detained and the family are very important.
      Dr. Godman: I remind my hon. Friend that he dealt with a case involving my nephew, Luke, who was detained for eight hours in a police station in his constituency. He will confirm that my nephew was innocent of any misdemeanour.
      Mr. Cohen: I cannot remember all the cases that I have had in 17 years in Parliament, but I am happy that my hon. Friend has put that on the record and that I was able to help his nephew. I am happy to help all my constituents in such circumstances.
      Lord Lloyd of Berwick's report on his inquiry into legislation against terrorism—Cm 3420—has been quoted a lot. Paragraph 9.26 on page 48 says:
      In England and Wales, whether a person is arrested under PACE or under the PTA, he has the right to consult a solicitor and to have the solicitor present during interview. He is also entitled to have someone he knows informed of his arrest. These rights may be delayed on the authority of a superintendent if he reasonably believes that such communications might be detrimental to the investigation for one or more specified reasons. The maximum period during which a detainee may be held incommunicado corresponds with the length of time for which he may be detained without further authority. Thus, in non-terrorist cases the rights of access may be delayed up to 36 hours whereas a terrorist suspect may be held incommunicado for up to 48 hours. Furthermore, in terrorist cases an officer of Assistant Chief Constable rank or above may order that consultations with a solicitor are to take place within the sight and hearing of a uniformed officer of at least the rank of inspector.
      That makes it clear that, in non-terrorist cases, the norm is 36 hours. If the period is to last longer than that, it is not unreasonable that the reason for the delay and denial of rights should be specified. A simple explanation would suffice, perhaps involving the suspicion of terrorism, but some concrete justification should be given and someone should not be kept an extra 12 hours and denied those rights without genuine suspicion. That would subvert PACE, because every case could be treated as a terrorist case and a person detained for an extra 12 hours without anybody being notified.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if those games of holding persons incommunicado—the purpose of which is to put pressure on prisoners—are played, those actions would be subject to subsequent
      366
      inquiry by the court and, after 2 October, by the European Court of Human Rights? It is ludicrous that we should lose cases because of unnecessary provisions such as the ones before us.
      Mr. Cohen: That is a good point. It would not be difficult to give a reason, because the Government's proposals in the legislation against terrorism consultation paper suggest that a written record should be kept of the outcome of the review of the case. Lord Lloyd also made it clear that delay had to be for specified reasons.
      Lord Lloyd also pointed out that a survey of those detained under the PTA in Britain in 1989–90 found that legal advice was delayed in some 26 per cent. of cases and there was a delay in informing someone of a person's detention in 44 per cent. of cases. Those are high figures, and I hope that we will not see a return to such wholesale denial of rights. In a sense, the Bill would legalise those delays.
      Other hon. Members have mentioned the European Court of Human Rights and its judgment in Murray v. United Kingdom. The court found that the denial of access to a lawyer, when combined with the trial court's right to draw adverse inferences from silence under questioning, violated the detainee's rights under article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Consequently, the circumstances that gave rise to the successful challenge in the Murray case could now arise throughout the United Kingdom. I would like an assurance that the Government have addressed that point so that we will not face similar judgments in future.
      Amendment No. 178 seeks to ensure that a detained person has access to his or her family after four hours of detention and that the first review of the case should be completed by then. I admit that the figure of four hours has been plucked out of the air, but a review of the case could reasonably be completed within that time. It would be better than a long time without any proper review and the denial of rights of the person being held.
      The amendment would amend the review process. I want to ensure that individual rights are maintained, although that is outside the review process. However, the amendment would build on the existing requirement for a review officer to inform the detained person of his rights as soon as continued detention has been authorised, by adding a requirement that the first review must be completed and the decision notified to the detained person within four hours of his arrest. At that point, the detained person would have to be notified of his rights, otherwise—as far as I can see—he would be left without having been notified of his rights for an indefinite period. The amendment would extend the civil liberties of the person involved.
      I am concerned about the drafting of Government amendment No. 64, which is not as tight as I would have hoped. The Government may be able to reconsider in the other place. The amendment repeatedly mentions doing things
      as soon as is reasonably practicable.
      That is a bland requirement, and no explanation for undue delay need be given. No indication is given of how long that requirement could be. The amendment also states:
      The person named must be … a friend of the detained person … a relative, or … a person who is known to the detained person who is likely to take an interest in his welfare.

      367
      What if none of those categories applies? For example, people from abroad might have no one in those categories in this country. Much abuse is being heaped on beggars at the moment. If they were taken into a police station under these powers, they might have nobody in those categories available.
      The amendment also states:
      Where a detained person is transferred from one police station to another, he shall be entitled to exercise the right … in respect of the police station to which he is transferred.
      Will that mean that he will be denied those rights at the first police station he is taken to, with the excuse that he will eventually be transferred, thus increasing the delay? It also states that a detained person may
      consult a solicitor as soon as is reasonably practicable, privately and at any time.
      However, that right is negated later in the amendment, when it provides that
      a detained person … may consult a solicitor only in the sight and hearing of a qualified officer.
      Bang goes the right to privacy.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend know why is it necessary to put such provisions in the Bill, which will open us up to litigation in the European Court after 2 October, because the European convention on human rights contains the right to private consultation?
      Mr. Cohen: That is why we need an explanation of Government amendment No. 64. It also states that
      an officer of at least the rank of superintendent may authorise a delay.
      It gives a list of reasonable grounds for authorising a delay, but it does not say that an officer must specify the reason on which he relied. In my view, the reason should be put on the record formally and explained to the detained person.
      The amendment also states that
      the reason shall be recorded as soon as is reasonably practicable.
      As I have already said, that is vague and provides no proper time limit.
      Mr. Best: What does the term "reasonably practicable" mean in this context? Are reasons supposed to be provided there and then, or later? Is the term meant to carry a notion of fairness? It is an interesting idea.
      Mr. Cohen: The phrase could be interpreted in all those ways. That is what is worrying. Given that the police are always busy with crimes, they could say that it was reasonable to delay making a decision on a case, with the result that the person detained could be held a lot longer.
      The term is vague. I hope that the Government will at least put time limits on what they consider to be reasonably practicable.
      Proposed new subsection (7) states that delays can take place
      in the absence of a further authorisation under sub-paragraph (1).
      That means that there could be repeated delays in granting rights to a detainee.
      368
      I acknowledge that the Government want to improve matters with amendment No. 64, but it is too loosely worded. It needs to be tightened up to ensure that civil liberties are protected.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: We support new clause 4, and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) touches on some matters raised in Standing Committee. He alluded to the reasonable suspicion test, which we tried to amend in Committee.
      This debate illustrates the main point of the previous debate. There is no great difference between the parties about the fact that permanent legislation may be needed, but what should it contain? The powers of detention, the period for which people can be held in detention, how long they can be held before they can talk to a solicitor, or before their families are told—all those matters must be reviewed in the light of experience. They appear again and again in the Lord Lloyd review and in the annual reviews held at present. There needs to be a more regular review system for the legislation.
      The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) mentioned a matter that the Standing Committee touched on regularly. The law will be changed fundamentally when the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force in October. Not many people outside the House are aware of it, although it may turn out to be one of this Administration's most important achievements. The fact that that Act is coming down the track should make us sensitive about passing legislation that recent case law suggests may be in breach of it, as the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead said.
      7.45 pm
      The Secretary of State has asserted that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights, but other legal advice states that parts of it are not compatible with the convention. Where case law warning bells ring about periods of detention, the right to see a solicitor and so on, we should err on the side of caution and legality. We should not give excessive power to the authorities, even if we have to revisit the provisions because they are not perfect.
      Britain will not be well served, and Parliament's reputation will be spoiled even further among those people who dislike it already, if we are dragged back again to the European Court for breaches of the convention. We must not ignore those warning bells, which are ringing rather loudly.
      Mr. McNamara: Is not one of the sad things that we have yet to see the evidence that the Government claim renders the Bill compatible with the convention, despite the number of challenges to that claim?
      Mr. Hughes: In Committee, I offered to show the Minister of State my legal advice if he would show us his. I have not seen the Government's legal advice. I have mine with me, and the Minister is welcome to see it.
      The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) makes a good point. On issues such as this, the advice to Government must be placed in the public domain. However, the Government must heed the case law, the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. They must try to share the best advice and

      369
      err on the side of caution. Otherwise, they will have to return to the courts to defend this Bill, and what we have warned about today will come to pass in about a year.
      Mr. Bermingham: I was not going to speak in this debate, but I wandered into the Chamber to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) who, like me, has had a long involvement in Irish politics in one way or another.
      I declare an interest. I am a practising lawyer, and I paid £175 to go on the Bar Council course on human rights legislation. The Human Rights Act 1998 brings the European convention into our domestic law, and is one of the most far-sighted pieces of legislation of my lifetime, and possibly of the previous century. It establishes, once and for all, a person's right to a fair trial. It also establishes equality of arms—as it is phrased—between the rights of an individual and those of the state.
      That that has not always been true of our law was especially clear in the 1970s. I served on the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, when we examined a detained person's rights, and especially that person's right to legal advice and access. The so-called PACE code followed, and it has served us well. If I say that the Court of Appeal has sometimes sought to negate that legislation, and slim down the rights conferred by Parliament, I do so with my tongue in my cheek.
      The 1984 Act was far-sighted. One of the cardinal principles of our law has always been the right to legal advice. If it is good enough for the man accused of murder, it is good enough for anybody else. Everybody who is arrested for a domestic crime, save in exceptional circumstances, has almost immediate access to a lawyer. That lawyer has a right to be present throughout the inquiries that are made; he has a right to advise his client whether to say something or not. The laws on the right to silence have changed over the years. Be that as it may, the right of access to a lawyer is at the very heart of our inquisitorial system, which is an accusatorial process when it comes before a court.
      Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend obviously has a lot of experience in this area. How does he feel about denial of privacy, given that the authorities can listen in to the conversation between the person detained and his lawyer?
      Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will come to it in a moment.
      As I said, that right has always been absolute, and people have always been entitled to privacy and integrity. In police stations up and down the land, facilities are available to enable people to have private consultation. The telephones are meant to be secure—there has just been a ruling in a prison case, so the authorities cannot tap telephone calls. There is another case going before the House of Lords, and if that does not succeed before 2 October, it will inevitably go to Europe, where it will succeed. Listening in to telephone calls is an invasion of human rights, and interferes with the equality of arms.
      370
      The European Court of Human Rights is not just a court for the European Union. It is for the whole of Europe, and stretches across some 26 countries.
      Mr. McNamara: Forty-one.
      Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The tests and standards are meant to be the same throughout.
      Why should Northern Ireland be different? Why should there be a class of case in which there is not the right for a lawyer to be present at an interview? I do not want to vote on this; I just want the Minister of State to say, "Okay, we'll put it in." The Bill can be amended. What do we lose by including the new clause and making things clear? If we do not do it, it will be done for us.
      The trouble with some of these cases, which people often forget, is that if we play games with legislation that is not clear, honest and obvious, we give people who may well be guilty of crime the opportunity to have their convictions quashed later on a technicality. Why on earth do we run the risk?
      In some of the cases that went before the European Court, there was overwhelming evidence but, because our rules were not fair, convictions were quashed. Does that really serve justice? The answer is no. When we detain people and deny them access to lawyers, do we achieve anything in a judicial sense? What on earth is the purpose of keeping someone incommunicado? I can understand it while people are being arrested and there is a rolling round-up of villains. The classic example is the armed robbery: the police hold incommunicado those they have caught escaping from a bank. That is perfectly reasonable and proper, because the notice of their arrest may well alert people whom the police are seeking to trace and arrest. No one objects to that. Including such a provision in legislation on terrorism would be equally understandable and proper. The reasoning would be in front of us, and there would be no query about it.
      The minute we go beyond being reasonable and do not write into the law the equivalent of the law in other fields, whether in terrorism or something else, we open ourselves up to subsequent actions in the European Court that can lead to the quashing of convictions. Under article 6, if we get it wrong, there is no second chance, no retrial—the conviction is quashed. That is what we saw in the Murray case, which never actually got to the point about legal advice. There were already enough grounds to quash it. The European Court does not necessarily take every point. It looks at the strongest points and rules on those. Murray was one case, and Davis and Johnson is another. Not getting public interest immunity inquiry cases right leads to the quashing of convictions.
      So it goes on. In 1984, we wanted to avoid miscarriages of justice, and much legislation has been put in place since then. We have seen some pretty terrible cases, but we create cases of injustice when we do not have simple and fair laws. I ask the Minister of State just to look later at the new clause—that will be good enough for me. They tell me that this is a listening Government, and I hope that they will also listen to me about something else that I raised. I do not like voting against the Government. I try not to. If the Minister of State simply looks at the new clause, he will see the wisdom of ensuring that the law in

      371
      Northern Ireland is exactly the same as the law in England and Wales. If that is so, we ain't got a problem. Why can it not be like that?
      Dr. Godman: I promise that I will be brief. I wish to seek clarification with regard to new clause 4 which, it has been suggested to me, excludes Scotland. Yet it refers to clause 40, subsection (3)(b) of which refers to someone being detained under schedule 6. In the table of designated ports in schedule 6, five of them are in Scotland—Ardrossan, Cairnryan, Campbeltown, Stranraer and Troon. If things go well over the next few months, Port Glasgow may have to be added to that list. Negotiations are taking place about a ferry service between Northern Ireland and Port Glasgow. I believe that a ferry terminal will be built there.
      This is not a facetious point. We know that extremists on both sides of the divide have their supporters in Scotland. Recently, a person convicted of a terrorist crime was released and has applied to a Scottish university to read for a degree in political science.
      The new clause states that all persons detained should have a solicitor present at all interviews to be conducted under this measure. The presence of a solicitor in such interviews is, I believe, standard practice in police and criminal procedures in England. That is not the case in Scotland, and that might present a difficulty if the new clause includes Scotland, as I think that it must, given what I have said about clause 40(3)(b).
      Given the activities of some people in Scotland in relation to extremist organisations in Northern Ireland, do persons detained under the Bill have the same rights when being interviewed as apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend makes a very good point about Scotland. Will he accept from me that the inquisitorial procedures in Scotland, with the role of the procurator fiscal, the way in which evidence in accumulated and served and the way in which interviewing take place are different from those of England? Whereas Scotland may well have problems in the future with the European Court, we should not allow Northern Ireland to have problems that can be avoided.
      Dr. Godman: I have two comments in response to my hon. Friend's intervention. The Scottish legal system is now a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament. However, there is a difference between the two systems concerning the right to a solicitor. Some years ago, when we were debating a Scottish criminal justice Bill in this place, I sought to amend it along those lines. I was defeated. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), who then represented Glasgow, Garscadden and who is a lawyer, unfortunately argued against me. However, there is a distinction that has some bearing on the new clause.
      8 pm
      Mr. McNamara: I think that the new clause governs Scotland as well, as it refers to clause 40, which is in part V on counter-terrorist powers, not part VII, which is limited to Northern Ireland.
      Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has greater knowledge of the law than I. In that case,
      372
      we may have to amend Scots law, which would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, even where this sort of legislation is concerned. At the very least, a concordat would have to be established between Ministers from the Home and Northern Ireland Offices and the Scottish Executive.
      There are difficulties with the new clause where Scotland is concerned. Even though Scotland has not suffered from the outrages that have been inflicted on English communities—I think that the army general council of the Provisional IRA decided some years ago not to extend the campaign to Scotland—nevertheless senior police officers in the Pitt street headquarters of the Strathclyde police in Glasgow say that numerous supporters of outrageous terrorist activities and activists are based in Scotland.
      I merely ask the Minister that persons detained under clause 40 should have the same protection as those detained elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Lidington: Government amendment No. 64 is the central amendment in this group. It makes sense to relate the other amendments to the Government's proposal. The Government suggest that someone who is detained under the powers in clause 40 should have two rights: to inform a friend, relative or other person of their detention and to have access to a solicitor as soon as reasonably practicable, but subject to a number of exceptions, which are laid down in the Government's amendments to schedule 7.
      Labour Members spoke in favour of their amendment. A detainee should have a right to consult his or her solicitor, but the right should be conditional to some extent and should not be left untrammelled. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said how, with a bank robbery, the police might be justified in holding incommunicado members of a gang whom they had captured while they attempted to extract information and get hold of the gang members who had evaded them.
      The Government face a difficult balance between the desire to accord people legitimate civil rights and the demands of effective counter-terrorist policing. If someone is allowed unconditional access to a solicitor after detention, there will be a risk that other members of a terrorist organisation may be informed that an arrest has taken place or of a suspicion that an individual has informed the security forces, or that other information may be passed on that would help terrorists to perpetrate their crimes or put the police and security forces at risk.
      Mr. Bermingham: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said. Under English law, one can hold someone incommunicado for serious arrestable offences. We understand that, it is acceptable and special rules apply. Also, at present one can hold those arrested for terrorist offences incommunicado and no one is suggesting that that should change. The Bill should make it clear that the powers that are being exercised in England and Wales are the powers that will be exercised in Northern Ireland. We are simply saying, "Same place, same powers."
      Mr. Lidington: The Minister will defend the exact words of the amendment, but the list in sub-paragraphs (4)(a) to (g) is pretty comprehensive in setting out the risks that would legitimately justify withholding access to a solicitor during a counter-terrorist investigation.

      373
      I understood the intention of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), but it is a mistake to set a firm time limit for the review of detention. There is always a risk, in particular when one is dealing with officialdom in whatever shape or form, that a maximum time limit will become the minimum. The language of the Bill—that the review should take place as soon as is reasonably practical—offers a better safeguard. In most instances the police service will want to conduct the review and get it out of the way as quickly as possible.
      I have three questions for the Minister about the Government amendments. If he cannot reply in detail now, I should be grateful if he would respond in writing in due course.
      First, the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) pursued the Scottish angle and schedule 7 seems to include a section that offers safeguards to people detained under clause 40 in Scotland. Amendment No. 64 would put in place comparable safeguards for detainees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, the criteria for withholding access to a solicitor are different. The language of the Bill in page 108, where it relates to Scotland, is much less specific than the items laid down in amendment No. 64, which apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Why is that the case? In practice, is there likely to be a substantial difference between the safeguards and categories of exemption available in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and those available to a detainee in Scotland? That might be an important distinction in an investigation that crosses boundaries within the United Kingdom, if there were indeed a difference of substance in the law that the Government propose.
      Secondly, how will the police power to withhold access to a solicitor under certain defined conditions link with the power to seek from a judicial authority an extension of the detention period of up to seven days? Am I correct in my understanding that the Government propose that, provided the conditions in sub-paragraph (4) of amendment No. 64 are met, someone could be denied access to a solicitor for up to the full seven days of detention provided for in the Bill?
      Thirdly, I have a question about the right of the detained person to have one named person informed of his detention as soon as reasonably practical. The amendment does not specify the way in which that information should be communicated. The Government clearly realise—in their proposals on legal advice—that there need to be safeguards in relation to the police and the conduct of counter-terrorist investigations. Do not those problems also arise as regards alerting a friend, relative or other person interested in the welfare of the detainee?
      Is there a risk that exercising that right, which seems to be unconditional—according to my reading of amendment No. 64—would lead to information getting out that would put lives, or a terrorist investigation, at risk in the same way that the Government have accepted might happen if there were untrammelled access to a solicitor's advice? What is the Government's reason for making that difference between the two categories of right that they want to extend under the amendment?
      I look forward to answers to those questions, but the Opposition are broadly content with the Government's proposals.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: The discussion has been interesting. I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on several of the issues raised.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to access to solicitors. I shall deal with the points that he made and with Government amendment No. 64, and the amendments grouped with it, in the same context. There is not much difference between my hon. Friend's position and that in the Government's substantive amendment No. 64 and the others. There is universal acknowledgement that prompt access to a solicitor should be the norm in any of the circumstances outlined in the provisions. However, there is a difference between us; I shall deal further with that when I have made the general case for the Government's substantive amendments.
      The Government believe that in terrorist cases, as in ordinary cases under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, it should be possible in very rare circumstances—I stress that point—on the authority of a senior officer, to delay access to a solicitor. As I understand my hon. Friend's new clause, he thinks that that should not be possible in any circumstances. That is a difference between us. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) noted, it is a matter on which a balance of judgment has to be made. I shall put some flesh on that point in a moment. Before doing so, I shall explain the effect of the Government amendments.
      The Government amendments will add to the Bill the circumstances in which the right to advise someone of one's detention and/or to consult a solicitor may be deferred. When the Bill was introduced, that was achieved by amendments to sections 56 and 58 of PACE and the equivalent Northern Ireland PACE order, found in schedule 13. In the course of drafting those provisions, some technical deficiencies were identified and it was decided, for the ease of the reader, that rather than merely tidying them up by amendment, they should be included in the Bill. That is in line with the provisions for Scotland set out in paragraphs 12 to 16 of schedule 7. I hope that approach will be broadly welcomed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and the hon. Member for Aylesbury made some points about the situation in Scotland. The legal position in Scotland is addressed in paragraphs 12 to 16 of schedule 7. As my hon. Friend pointed out, Scotland has a separate criminal justice system, so matters are not dealt with in quite the same way.
      In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, let me say that the criteria are slightly different, but as they are consistent we do not think that any substantial difference will emerge. We have considered the issue carefully. However, in the light of the points made in the debate, I am prepared to consider whether my assertion needs closer scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman made a fair point, but the reason why Scotland is dealt with separately is—as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde pointed out—that Scotland has a separate system.
      8.15 pm
      The amendments do not change our policy on the arrangements for those detained under the terrorism provisions; they ensure that such people usually have a

      375
      prompt means of communicating with a named person and/or can obtain access to a solicitor. The amendments continue to provide that those rights would usually be available as soon as practicable. They also provide that, under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts, as at present—I emphasise that that is the situation that exists as we speak—and as provided for when the Bill was introduced, those rights may be deferred in certain circumstances for up to 48 hours.
      The circumstances in which the rights may be deferred are set out in paragraph 2C(4) of amendment No. 64. Seven alternatives are envisaged. The first four apply in all PACE cases; the last three are specific to terrorist cases. They include circumstances in which there is reasonable suspicion that access to a solicitor will have the effect of making it more difficult to prevent a terrorist act, or to apprehend someone involved in such an act, or to gather information about the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
      That is the fundamental point with which I respond to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). He asked what was different for Northern Ireland. The difference is that we are talking about terrorist legislation. That is what gives rise to the whole measure and to some of the issues that have been raised.
      Mr. Bermingham: I am not against the idea of delaying the right of access; it is already acceptable in serious, arrestable offences. It is certainly acceptable in terrorist offences—because of the pursuit and arrest of other suspects and so on. The point on which I intervened is my grave concern about the presence of a solicitor during an interview. I can see no reason why that should ever be denied.
      Mr. Clarke: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes; I shall return to it in a moment.
      We do not expect access to be deferred often. Records for England and Wales show that access has not been deferred in any terrorist cases during the past three years. In Northern Ireland, access was deferred in only 19 cases in 1999, in four cases in 1998, and in 33 cases in 1997. However, it is important to be able to defer access in exceptional cases. That brings me to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North and the points that he made.
      It would not be sensible to bind ourselves to a position in which it was never possible to defer access to a solicitor. If I understand my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South, he appeared to acknowledge that in his intervention. That is not to suggest that the Government assume that some solicitors may have links with terrorism—any more than the fact that such provision exists under PACE for detention in non-terrorist cases suggests that we assume that solicitors might have links with organised crime. However, we must provide in law for the possibility that such a situation might occur. Otherwise, with the absolute right that the new clause provides, even if the police knew that a nominated solicitor was directly linked to a terrorist group, they would be powerless to defer access. However rare we might all believe such circumstances to be—I do not seek
      376
      to impugn the reputation of solicitors either in Northern Ireland or Great Britain—it is surely our responsibility to ensure that such an eventuality could be dealt with if it arose.
      Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. My new clause actually states that a person detained
      shall be promptly informed of their right to consult privately with a solicitor and to have a solicitor present at all interviews to be conducted under this Act.
      We are arguing about being interviewed, not about the length of detention—although that might be another argument.
      Mr. Clarke: It is precisely in response to the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend that a clear provision will be included in the Bill.
      My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South made some points about human rights. We believe that the Bill is entirely consistent with the European convention on human rights. We have considered the matter at great length and that is why the certificate is in the Bill.
      I am perfectly well aware that lawyers may challenge that view, and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) initiated an entertaining discussion on that in Committee. Indeed, the cynic would say that it is likely that the view will be challenged in law. We believe that the provisions specifically protect the processes that we have described against action in the European Court of Human Rights and under the Human Rights Act 1998.
      It is in that context that I deal with the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North. I am the first to acknowledge the sensitivities of interviewing a person without their having the benefit of a solicitor being present, and those sensitivities include the fact that there could be implications for the weight that may be placed in any subsequent court case on answers given in those circumstances.
      Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend comes to the exact cause of my worry. The problem is the fact that one can draw inferences from the right to silence being exercised or from what is said during an interview. The presence of a lawyer protects the interviewer as well as the interviewee. If we have that in England in criminal and terrorist cases, why on earth are we not including it in the Bill?
      Mr. Clarke: If my hon. Friend will permit me, I will come to the precise point that he has been raising throughout the discussion.
      As I said, the sensitivities include the fact that there could be implications for the weight that may be placed in any subsequent court case on answers given in those circumstances. Sections 76 and 78 of PACE provide for the courts to exclude confessions or other evidence obtained unfairly, and of course it would be for the court to decide whether those provisions applied to evidence adduced in court which was obtained before a solicitor was present. That deals directly with my hon. Friend's point.
      As I have said, we do not envisage access being denied other than in the most exceptional circumstances, and we have a responsibility to ensure that those detained under

      377
      the terrorism provisions, as under PACE, are properly looked after, and that includes having appropriate access to legal advice. Equally, we have a responsibility to prevent acts of terrorism and to apprehend those involved in such acts. That is the balance of judgment that we have made.
      I have tried to set out the Government's thinking in response to the points that have been made, and I am prepared to consider whether any of the matters raised need to be addressed. However, what we have said is clear and straightforward.
      Dr. Godman: I am extremely grateful for the courteous and comprehensive way in which my hon. Friend responded to my concerns about Scotland. On a minor point, in the table of designated ports on page 103, Campbeltown is misspelt.
      Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly draw that misspelling to the attention of the parliamentary draftsmen.
      I turn now to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen). Amendment No. 173 is unnecessary. Paragraph 25 of schedule 7 provides that a review officer must make a written record of the outcome of all reviews and that the record must include the grounds on which continued detention is authorised. That is fundamental to the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
      Paragraph 18 provides that the first review of detention must be as soon as practicable after arrest, and reviews must take place thereafter at 12-hour intervals, so although there may not be a review at exactly the 36-hour point specified in the amendment, there will be a review between 36 and 48 hours. As with all reviews, a written record will be made of the outcome, including the reasons for continued detention, and that addresses my hon. Friend's specific point.
      Amendment No. 178 in the name of my hon. Friend would require the first detention review to be done within four hours of arrest. In most cases it would not be realistic to have a fixed requirement, and I could not advise the House to accept the amendment. My hon. Friend acknowledged that the figure of four hours was plucked out of the air. I do not suggest that as any criticism of his amendment, but that is essentially the problem in choosing a period, whether it is two hours, four hours or six hours—there is an arbitrary nature to that choice. That is why the wording—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to come to order. There are too many private conversations going on, and the Minister is replying to the points made by hon. Members.
      Mr. Clarke: I am sorry for going on for slightly longer than I had hoped. Many technical points were made during interventions and I thought that it was courteous to respond to them as fully as possible, even though I am aware that this may not be the height of rhetoric and may not grip everybody in the way that every parliamentarian would wish.
      We hold to the phrase
      as soon as is reasonably practicable
      precisely because fixing a particular time would not be effective.
      Mr. Cohen: I am gripped by interest in the Minister's response, and I accept that my period of four hours before the first review and subsequent report is arbitrary, although it is meant to be a maximum period. My hon. Friend's formula is for the review and report to be done
      as soon as is reasonably practicable.
      Would he expect that to be within four hours?
      Mr. Clarke: I am certainly prepared to say that the courts would view the period suggested by my hon. Friend as reasonable, but that is a judgment not for me but for the courts, which have to consider situations in the round. Delays can happen for realistic, technical reasons, and they need to be dealt with.
      I have tried to deal as fully as I can with the points made by hon. Members, even down to the spelling of important Scottish towns, critical as that is. I hope that, on consideration, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North will withdraw his new clause and we will not have a Division.
      I am conscious of the time and hon. Members' desire to move on, so I have not spent a great deal of time explaining Government amendments Nos. 60 to 63, which have not been addressed in the debate. I hope that they will be accepted.
      Mr. McNamara: In view of what the Minister has said and his willingness to look at the points again, presumably before the Bill goes to the other place, and in view of amendment No. 64, which goes some way to meeting our concerns about what was missing from the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 8

      EXPIRY AND REVIVAL (No. 2)
      '(1) This Act shall (subject to subsection (2)) cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which the Act is brought into force.
      (2) The Secretary of State may by order provide—

      (a) that a provision of this Act which is in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall continue in force for a specific period not exceeding five years;

      (b) that a provision of this Act shall cease to have effect;

      (c) that a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding five years.

      (3) An order under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument; and no such order shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 281.

      Division No. 109]

      [8.28 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Baker, Norman

      Breed, Colin

      Ballard, Jackie

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      379

      Burnett, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Burstow, Paul

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Moore, Michael

      Chidgey, David

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Cotter, Brian

      Oaten, Mark

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Rendel, David

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Sanders, Adrian

      Flynn, Paul

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

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

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hancock, Mike

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Tyler, Paul

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Wallace, James

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

      Webb, Steve

      Willis, Phil

      Wise, Audrey

      Livsey, Richard

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      McDonnell, John

      Mr. Tom Brake and

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Mr. Bob Russell.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Clwyd, Ann

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Alexander, Douglas

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cohen, Harry

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Colman, Tony

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Connarty, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cooper, Yvette

      Austin, John

      Corston, Jean

      Banks, Tony

      Cousins, Jim

      Barnes, Harry

      Cranston, Ross

      Battle, John

      Crausby, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cummings, John

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Benton, Joe

      Darvill, Keith

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Berry, Roger

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Best, Harold

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Betts, Clive

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blackman, Liz

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dowd, Jim

      Blizzard, Bob

      Drew, David

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Borrow, David

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Edwards, Huw

      Browne, Desmond

      Ennis, Jeff

      Burden, Richard

      Fisher, Mark

      Burgon, Colin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Flint, Caroline

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gapes, Mike

      Cann, Jamie

      Gardiner, Barry

      Caplin, Ivor

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Casale, Roger

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Chaytor, David

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Clapham, Michael

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Goggins, Paul

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      380

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Merron, Gillian

      Grocott, Bruce

      Miller, Andrew

      Grogan, John

      Mitchell, Austin

      Gunnell, John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hanson, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

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

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Healey, John

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Heppell, John

      Mountford, Kali

      Hill, Keith

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hope, Phil

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Olner, Bill

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Hurst, Alan

      Pearson, Ian

      Hutton, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Pickthall, Colin

      Illstey, Eric

      Pike, Peter L

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Plaskitt, James

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jamieson, David

      Pond, Chris

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pope, Greg

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Pound, Stephen

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Rammell, Bill

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Rapson, Syd

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rogers, Allan

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Khabra, Piara S

      Rooney, Terry

      Kidney, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Rowlands, Ted

      Laxton, Bob

      Ruane, Chris

      Lepper, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Levitt, Tom

      Salter, Martin

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Sawford, Phil

      Linton, Martin

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lock, David

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Love, Andrew

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      McCabe, Steve

      Singh, Marsha

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McFall, John

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McWilliam, John

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Snape, Peter

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mallaber, Judy

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Maxton, John

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Meale, Alan

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      381

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Stringer, Graham

      Tynan, Bill

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Watts, David

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      White, Brian

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Winnick, David

      Thompson, William

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Timms, Stephen

      Wood, Mike

      Tipping, Paddy

      Woolas, Phil

      Todd, Mark

      Worthington, Tony

      Touhig, Don

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wyatt, Derek

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Mr. Graham Allen.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      TERRORISM: INTERPRETATION
      Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in page 1, line 7, leave out from "means" to end of line 8 and insert—
      'the commission of, or the threat to commit, any criminal act with the intention of—

      (a) putting the public or any section of the public in fear, or

      (b) coercing the institutions of democratic government, provided that the act'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 190, in page 1, line 7, leave out from "use" to end of line 12 and insert—
      'of serious violence against a person or persons, or the threat to use such violence, to intimidate or coerce a government, one or more political bodies or organisations, the public or any section of the public for political ends, and which—

      (a) endangers the life of any person; or

      (b) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.'.

      No. 194, in page 1, line 7, leave out from "threat" to "of in line 8 and insert "for political ends,".
      No. 192, in page 1, leave out line 8 and insert—
      'coercing, influencing or intimidating government, one or more political bodies, groups or organisations, the public or any section of the public, of actions which—'.
      No. 146, in page 1, leave out line 9 and insert—
      '(a) involves violence against any person or serious violence against property'.'.
      No. 193, in page 1, line 9, leave out "or property".
      No. 123, in page 1, line 10,, after "(b)", insert "seriously".
      No. 195, in page 1, line 14, leave out from "Kingdom" to "and" in line 16.
      Mr. McNamara: Amendment No. 122 would alter the definition of terrorism. It would remove the phrase
      the use or threat, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, of action.
      382
      Amendment No. 123, which I also tabled, would insert "seriously" before "endangers" in subsection (1)(b).
      The amendment is a straight response to the kind invitation that the Minister issued in Committee on 8 February. He said:
      if a better definition of terrorism emerges, we are prepared to consider it.-[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 February 2000; c. 325.]
      The definition of terrorism took up the time of the House and the Committee. Hon. Members were worried that the definition in the Bill was too wide, based on wrong principles, and could catch in its net people who simply opposed genetically modified foods.
      The Government's attitude to those who oppose GM foods has altered since Second Reading. Someone who might once have been considered an eco-terrorist is now regarded merely as a person who has serious misgivings about the adequacy of the provision for GM plants and their long-term effect.
      The amendment arises from discussions that I held with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which was worried about the wide scope and subjective nature of the definition. The amendment that the commission proposed has four main elements. First, it deals with the motivational basis. The commission suggests that the provision for
      advancing a political, religious or ideological cause
      should be removed.
      Secondly, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission insisted that the action should be contrary to the criminal law. Thirdly, it proposed that the prohibited action should put the public in fear, or coerce the institutions of democratic government.
      The commission believes that the Bill should not provide for differential police powers that depend on the motive behind the relevant actions. It believes that triggering the special powers should depend on the nature of the intended consequences of the action. In its view, the two most undesirable consequences are
      putting the public or any section of the public in fear
      and
      coercing the institutions of democratic government.
      Motivation is not the issue and should not be criminalised, although it would probably be appropriate to tackle it at the sentencing stage if someone was found guilty of an offence. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on 14 December:
      If people are killed or injured, the fact that the bombs, the shrapnel and the glass carry a label marked "Animal rights" or the name of some foreign country is immaterial to those who suffer.— [Official Report, 14 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 165.]
      Motivation is extremely hard to prove and the categories are not susceptible to clear delineation. The Bill's approach makes the development of a two-tier justice system more likely. Under it, some people will be afforded lesser rights on the basis of the motivation for their crimes.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am not opposed to the hon. Gentleman's objective, but does he realise that the amendment would make acts by, for example, hunt saboteurs, capable of falling within the

      383
      definition of terrorism? I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman wants that, but the amendment would achieve that effect.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. McNamara: I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point and I would be prepared to take a verbal amendment to exclude hunt saboteurs. However, even though clause 1 is one of the most controversial in the Bill—he is probably aware of that as he took part in the exchanges on Second Reading—I do not intend to push the amendment to the vote. That shows the degree to which the House is searching for a satisfactory solution to this difficult problem that gets away from advancing a political, religious or ideological issue and achieves a better way of dealing with it.
      Amendment No. 123, which would put the word "seriously" in front of the word "endangers", would meet the problems raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's hunt saboteur to some extent, but the essential point is that a criminal act should be committed, which would not necessarily make such an offence a terrorist offence. The problem is that, if we retain motivation in the definition, we will have a two-tier approach and certain people will be afforded lesser rights on the basis of the motivation for their crimes.
      The inclusion of political, religious or ideological cause results in a definition of terrorism that is both too wide and too narrow. It is too wide because many of the problems with extending the definition in the manner proposed, which we discussed on Second Reading, show people's discomfort with the range of organisations and activities that we believe might be caught by the clause.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave the assurance that prosecutions would not ensue in many of the examples cited by colleagues from all parts of the House—for example, undertaking activities and fund raising on behalf of solidarity groups committed to major political changes in other countries—essentially on the basis that the Director of Public Prosecutions would use good sense in these matters. That is not in any way sufficient to allay the concerns expressed. Indeed, some decisions by the DPP to proceed with prosecutions, particularly under the Official Secrets Acts, make one wonder about whether that good sense is always proper and always accurate in these matters. Furthermore, a person's right to freedom of expression and of association cannot be contingent on the discretion of one person. The Bill should not be drawn wider than the threat justifies.
      In addition, one of the principles underlying the European convention is that precision and certainty in the law is a key precept. A person is entitled to know whether the activities in which he or she wishes to engage or the right that he or she wishes to assert have been prescribed or limited by law. The Bill's definition is far too wide in terms of what a person may or may not say or express.
      The definition is also too narrow because the clause excludes many organisations that use terror tactics—gangs involved in organised crime, racketeering or drug running, for example, which are not covered by a definition based on motivation. It is not certain that the Bill's definition would cover the Mafia. Surely, therefore, one should remember that the Bill's impact on society is
      384
      what will be assessed and gaps in the existing criminal law for dealing with such infrastructure errors or failures should be closed. The commission's first point, therefore, is that—specifically and directly—the question of motivation is dangerous. Far better to be specific in terms of attitude and say that a criminal offence should have been committed. It is that to which I now turn my attention.
      The Bill's definition leaves open the possibility that some actions could be classified as terrorist although they were not criminal offences, and I do not consider that acceptable. The objective of this element of the commission's proposed definition is to exclude certain activities that would be covered by the definition, but that most people would not regard as terrorist—for example, activities involved in industrial action. Many trade unions could be accused of endangering the lives and/or the health and safety of a section of the public in such circumstances. That would apply to electricity workers, firefighters, ambulance workers or nurses. Under the Bill as it stands, such actions could potentially be classed as terrorism. A requirement for the legislation to be otherwise—to be criminal—would exclude, for example, legitimate industrial action. Hunger strikes or suicide attempts would likewise be excluded by the criminality requirement in my proposed new definition.
      The next requirement in the amendment is that the action involved should put the public "in fear". International human rights standards make it clear that the essence of terrorism lies in the effect that it would have on the public. For example, the first protocol of the Geneva convention of 1949 refers, in sub-paragraph 2 of article 51, to
      acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.
      Article 5 of the 1998 United Nations convention on the suppression of terrorist bombings states:
      Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention, in particular, where they are intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons.
      Interestingly, Lord Lloyd recommended a similar approach—that the definition should include the element of intimidating or coercing the public or any section of the public. His proposed definition was the use of serious violence against persons or property, or the threat to use such violence to intimidate or coerce a Government, the public or any section of the public in order to promote political, social or ideological objectives.
      That is the whole definition. Although the commission does not accept the words
      in order to promote political, social or ideological objectives,
      it takes a similar approach to the European convention on human rights, the first protocol of the Geneva convention and the suppression of bombing convention.
      The commission also considered the prohibition of action to coerce institutions of democratic government. The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said in Committee:
      The fundamental thrust of what we should be trying to achieve is a definition of terrorism as an attempt to undermine democratic processes by the use of violence.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 January 2000; c.18.]

      385
      We are trying to meet my hon. Friend's request, while meeting the spirit of Lord Lloyd's recommendation. That is the Government's intention, but it is not included in their definition.
      The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission proposes an alternative to
      putting the public or any section of the public in fear.
      The use of a car bomb to put pressure on a totalitarian regime would be covered, as would the threat to coerce a democratic Government that did not put the public or any section of it in fear.
      We have grounds for discussion about the possibility of improving the Government's definition, and getting away from their ideological, political or religious approach. Nevertheless, the amendment aims to achieve what the Government and, I believe, the whole House want to achieve: to get away from a definition that is hugely subjective, wide in some aspects and dangerous, placing individuals in a position where they do not know whether what they are doing is right or wrong in the eyes of the law.
      Mr. Hogg: Again, I entirely respect the hon. Gentleman's motives, but his amendment is enlarging the class of activities that might be treated as terrorist, not restricting them. If the Bill removed the purpose test and included the test of putting the public, or any section of it, in fear, hunt saboteurs, for example, would be brought within its scope. I dislike hunt saboteurs, but they are not in any ordinary sense terrorists. However, that is what the amendment would achieve.
      Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, let me say that, if one inserts the word "seriously" before "endangers" in line 10 of clause 1, that will ensure that the risk that would trigger the powers is a serious one. If that is there, it will meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. When he makes his speech, as 1 am sure that he will, because the question of definition has engaged and worried us all, we will hear what he proposes.
      It is not my intention to force the matter to a vote, but, because of the concerns expressed here, there should perhaps be an opportunity for those in the other place who are learned in the law to apply their minds to the matter, which is causing considerable difficulties among lawyers, who are concerned about the sweep of that definition. It has caused Lord Lloyd of Berwick some concern. As the legislation is based on many of his opinions, it is proper that we consider his concerns carefully, but I make the point: a person should be guilty of a specific criminal act. That should be what is judged, not whether it is politically, religiously or ideologically motivated, although that point could be taken into account in sentencing.
      Mr. Mark Fisher: My hon. Friend says that a person should be guilty of a specific act, but, from my reading of his amendment, it still encompasses the concept of threat. That is one of the things that I find most baffling and disturbing about the Government's wording in the Bill: the threat of serious violence against property constitutes terrorism. As I read their wording, a letter threatening to burn a field of GM crops would constitute an act of terrorism. I sympathise
      386
      with much of what he says, but, by maintaining the idea of threat, is his amendment not perpetuating the problem that I have with the Government's wording?
      Mr. McNamara: We all have that problem on the question of threat. I put it in a way that my hon. Friend might appreciate. If I seek to carry out an act and threaten to do it, but that threat is not carried out, for whatever reason—a bomb does not go off or something of that nature—that would still be a threat. The amendments talks about seriously endangering life. That would meet that point. On the point about GM crops and similar matters, that is why I am seeking to get rid of motivation, which would then become a question on sentencing. There is a world of difference between the motivation of a person who is seeking to blow up a building and the motivation of a person who wants to destroy a field of GM crops. That is the point at which the question arises of whether an act is criminal.
      9 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has shown what difficult territory we are in. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee left it with the same definition with which we had begun. We are a long way from having an adequate and precise definition of terrorism. We must get that definition right, even in this slightly odd forum—the best that we have—because "terrorism" is the word on which the structure of the Bill depends. Once we define something as being terrorist, much else follows.
      For example, proscription of an organisation may follow. That cannot happen unless, under clause 3, the Secretary of State believes that the organisation involved "is concerned in terrorism". A whole set of offences follows from a definition of terrorism, and the burden of proof or the nature of the defence will change. Those offences include fundraising for a terrorist organisation or failing to co-operate with the police in relation to a terrorist organisation. Much more happens. The powers of the police are greater if they say that they are dealing with terrorism. A person can be detained for longer, or large areas may be cordoned off. The powers of the Bill are based on the point that someone is involved in what is defined as terrorism.
      Like the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I felt concern that we were going too far. To a lesser extent, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) felt it, and it was certainly felt by the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and—if I may say so in his absence; I know that he intends to come back after a constituency party meeting—for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter).
      I shall set out where the consensus lay. As the Minister appreciates, it is important to note that there was consensus to some extent over the need for a change to the definition. The hon. Gentleman has not yet signed up to that need, but there was a broad view across part of the Committee, as there is across the House—it includes people of such differing political perspectives as the hon. Members for Basingstoke and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and hon. Members on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches—that a Bill that allows us to define as terrorism something that targets any organisation in the world goes too far.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: This is a perfectly legitimate debate, just as it was in Committee, but the hon.

      387
      Gentleman takes too much on himself in seeking to speak for all members of that Committee. He should allow hon. Members to speak for themselves.
      Mr. Hughes: They will. I merely put it to the Minister that a widespread view was expressed on Second Reading—and to a lesser extent by the somewhat more restricted membership of the Committee—that the definition is too wide. Although we may not yet have a form of wording that unites the hon. Member for Hull, North with the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and for Basingstoke, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and me, some common elements in the direction that all of us seek to follow would take us away from the definition given by the Minister and the Government. We want a better, tighter, more specific definition.
      Mr. Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, although we had a discussion on the matter in Committee, the Committee did not accept his position on it—as we did not accept other positions on it? I shall certainly speak for myself later in the debate. The hon. Gentleman used the word "consensus", but there was not a consensus on the matter—there are different points of view on it. Those views are held by hon. Members from different parties—none of whom, I suspect, would necessarily agree with one another on the matter.
      Mr. Hughes: I do not want to misrepresent the situation—nor do I want the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent me. I did not say that there was a consensus in the House—
      Mr. Maginnis: A large body of opinion.
      Mr. Hughes: Yes. There was a large body of dissatisfaction about the matter, and there is a large body of agreement on it between those whom I identified. I was not including everyone in that. I was not including the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), his colleagues in Committee who supported the Government when we voted on the provision, or the Minister. However, there is a consensus among a wide body of opinion in the House—that body; not everybody—that we should amend the legislation.
      Mr. Clarke: The only reason that I am intervening—I had not intended to do so; I am very happy to listen to the hon. Gentleman's arguments—is that I must object to the proposition that he is speaking on behalf of some cross-party consensus in the Committee or in the House. He is speaking for himself, as he should.
      Mr. Hughes: I do not want to be distracted by this issue. I shall make the point even more bluntly. The definition is not acceptable to many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister understands that, and that the Government will amend the definition. The Liberal Democrats will seek to divide the House on amendment No. 192—unless, as I hope, Ministers have said by then that they will move in our direction.
      388
      I am not too bothered about whether the Government move in the direction that we propose, or in the direction proposed by the hon. Member for Hull, North or the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, as long as we move away from the breadth of the Government's definition—which will cover all sorts of activities which, until now, no one, not even Lord Lloyd, has argued should be defined as terrorism. We shall be stretching the definition of terrorism beyond any definition previously accepted in the United Kingdom, including that in the dictionary and that in common parlance. We should not do it.
      Mr. Hogg: There is general unease about the Bill's definition of terrorism, which I share and will be expressing in my own words—if I have the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of the conclusions to which we may well come is that we cannot define terrorism in acceptable terms in clause 1 if we are properly to balance that definition with civil liberties. If that is right, the Bill itself is inherently flawed, both in part I and in consequential parts, and by seeking further and other definitions, we are simply thrashing about.
      Mr. Hughes: That is certainly a theoretical conclusion to the debate, and it may even be the practical conclusion. In a moment, I shall try to deal with the Minister's objections to the proposed alternative definitions that we have included in some of our amendments.
      Amendment No. 122, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Hull, North, seems to deal well with the point that, if we include motivation in the definition, we shall begin to be in trouble. If we start saying that we have to read someone's mind to determine whether their motivation is political, religious or ideological, huge numbers of people may be covered. I gave an example in Committee. In terms of motivation, someone who hears voices telling them that they must stalk serial adulterers will be considered to be ideologically driven. Such a person would potentially come within the definition of terrorism, provided that he or she fulfilled the other criteria. Someone who believed that he or she had a duty to be an environmentalist and therefore decided to attack property as a way of protesting against a particular development would also come within the definition in the Bill.
      Until now, nobody has argued that that is terrorism. The dictionary definition of terrorism—we looked it up in Committee—makes no such reference. The Bill stretches the English language too far. We should not do that because we have the criminal law: it is not as if we do not have the rest of the law. If someone set off a bomb for no reason that anyone could divine—we do not know the conclusion of the case, but let us say that nobody ever discovered why those terrible nail bombs were set off in London—that would be covered by the explosive substances legislation. It is perfectly good criminal law. If someone attacks a field of corn, there is perfectly good legislation dealing with criminal damage and damage to property. The Bill is not meant to cover any of that; it is meant to provide for cases that are not already covered by the law, and we should provide only for cases that are not already covered.
      Mr. Hogg: That is not right. The purpose of the Bill is not to tackle a range of activities that are not yet subject

      389
      to the criminal law but to attach to those individuals and organisations the full weight of the other powers to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, such as the restrictions on the right to finance.
      Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. The law already exists, but the Bill will ratchet it up and suddenly apply the criminal law and a whole range of other powers. As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone knows—and he has had more practical experience of such legislation than most of us—it will then sweep into the legislation cases that no one wants swept in.
      Amendments Nos. 190, 194 and 192 seek to direct the Bill at those who threaten political targets. The hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and for Basingstoke and I—among others—believe that we should try to limit it in that way. The Minister will recall that in Committee we debated whether the Bill should be directed only at those who wanted to attack Government. We concluded that that would not do, as it would make it illegal to attack a Government who were not legal, or another political organisation. In Northern Ireland, if one political organisation attacked another political organisation, neither of which were in government, that would be understood as terrorism. We understood that we had to widen the definition of terrorism to include attacks on political organisations. That is why amendment No. 190 includes the phrase
      to intimidate or coerce a government, one or more political bodies or organisations, the public or any section of the public …
      The amendments also seek to remove the ideological and religious definitions because they are dangerously wide. They allow the crazed, deluded individual who is mentally ill or has a personality disorder to be swept in. We should not seek to do that. Such people are not terrorists just because they have an ideological fixation.
      We also tried to make sure that the Bill did not include attacks on property where there was no risk to the public. In amendments Nos.193 and 195 we seek to remove the provisions in relation to property. To take the example of London, it would be callous to attack Canary Wharf or a building in docklands because people might be killed, but if someone decided to attack an empty building in the middle of a field and their the only intention was to attack the building—
      Mr. Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Hughes: No, not at the moment.
      An attack on an empty building would not normally be regarded as in the same league as acts that involve serious violence against persons or endanger their health or create a serious risk to their safety.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Hull, North that we must avoid legislation that would make the nurse who took political action in the course of his or her duty potentially guilty of terrorism, with all the panoply of consequences. That is disgraceful nonsense. Lord Lloyd may have come to nearly the same conclusion, but the Government have gone further than him and further than their own consultation paper.
      The Government may say that there are various safeguards and that the Director of Public Prosecutions will not order prosecutions, but legislation should not do
      390
      what it is not intended to do. The Bill creates a whole set of new powers against the individual. That is bad legislation, as it neither defends the liberty of the subject nor helps make credible the argument for legislating against terrorism.
      We have not found a solution that has the consensus of the whole House, but we have tabled amendments that would considerably improve the Bill. In due course, I will ask colleagues to support us in a vote on amendment No. 192.
      The Home Office was shown one of many proposed amendments—the Human Rights Commission and Liberty have done some very good work, and I pay tribute to them—and said:
      Whilst acknowledging the sensitivities surrounding violence against property alone, we do not think the answer can be to make all such violence "off limits".
      We are not arguing that; we are arguing that violence that has only a property implication and can have no other should not be included.
      The Government's only other objection was to ask about a bomb or threat in connection with the Grand National or a laboratory where experiments on animals take place. If that carries no risk to any member of the public and has nothing to do with threatening the institutions of the state, it should not be considered a terrorist activity and should be dealt with by the criminal law in the normal way.
      Mr. Clarke: As I understand it, amendment No. 192 would have no impact whatever on the question of property. Is that right?
      Mr. Hughes: Amendment No. 192 has to be read with the consequential amendments, Nos. 193 and 195. If they were made, property would disappear from the Bill unless the attack on property had a consequence for individuals. The amendments go together, with one narrowing the group affected and the others removing acts with property-only implications, although as a matter of practicality we do not seek to divide the House on every amendment on the list.
      Mr. Gapes: Amendment No. 195 would, as I understand it, delete reference to activities that take place outside the United Kingdom. If the amendment were adopted, would the legislation apply only within the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Hughes: The answer is no. I can show the hon. Gentleman the relevant wording later, but the problem is that we are considering seven or eight different amendments that are intended to deal only with property outside and inside the UK. They do not address the issue that we should have the power to deal here with activities that may arise abroad, subject to the qualification—which is always raised by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone—that they should be political activities.
      Mr. Gapes: If somebody in this country planned a terrorist action to destroy property in another country, would it be subject to this legislation?
      Mr. Hughes: It would be subject to the legislation if it posed a threat to an individual or group of individuals and

      391
      if it had a political aim. If no person were at risk, the activity would be excluded, because there are provisions in the criminal law to deal with such issues.
      The European convention does not define terrorism as including property-only offences. The precedent is that terrorism is defined by threats and damage to individuals, not property. I hope that the Government have received the clear message that their definition is dangerously wide and should be changed.
      Mr. Alan Simpson: I support amendments Nos. 122 and 123, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I also support amendments to the definition in the Bill. I was sad that my new clause 7 was not selected for debate, but I shall try to address the principal issues that it covered.
      I feel considerable disquiet about the Government's definition and, yesterday, I discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, at the Home Office. As I was waiting to be allowed in, I saw on the Lobby notice board that the security status was black. I asked what that meant and was told that it meant that there was no threat. It is important to realise that we are having this debate at a time when there is at least the prospect of being able to step back from the rigid, brittle frontiers of terrorist legislation that have blighted much of the democratic debates that the House has had on the issue in recent years.
      Members of Parliament can go about their normal business without being surrounded by a House security system on high alert. That is something that we should celebrate. As a caveat to that, I can reveal that my meeting with my right hon. Friend carried a certain amount of risk to me. The Home Secretary was delayed unavoidably at a meeting in Downing street, and a Division was due in the House. I received a pager message telling me that the vote was imminent and I had to notify my right hon. Friend's staff that, if he did not arrive in time, I would have to race out of Queen Anne's gate to reach the House in time for the Division. The Division was called, and I bade a fast farewell, was escorted to the lift and began legging it for all I was worth along the road to try to get back here. Unfortunately, I almost collided with a vehicle as I crossed the road. It turned out to be my right hon. Friend's vehicle. He made excuses for me to the Whips, but I pointed out to him that we were likely to face threats from the Whips—in my case because I had missed the vote and in his case because he had missed me. That was about the level of the risk that we faced.
      However, the Bill's definition of terrorism spreads the notion of threat and risk in a way that raises serious questions about the Bill's credibility and about the erosion of civil liberties in our society. I am certain that this definitional clause, which is pivotal to the Bill, must be re-examined. Sadly, the Government declined to do so on Second Reading and in Committee.
      The definition is far too wide. The concept of terrorism that it advances is fundamentally flawed. It is deeply damaging to the openness of our society, to the primacy of civil and criminal law in our society, and to the respect in which that law is held.
      392
      On Second Reading, I urged the Government to look again at the definition of terrorism contained in the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993, which is currently in force. That Act defines acts of terrorism as the acts of
      persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto.
      I accept that that definition is probably insufficient, as it talks of threats to the Government rather than to governance. We must acknowledge that terrorist threats can be directed against all parties in a Parliament, not just the Government. We must also accept that terrorist threats can seek to disrupt civil society to coerce or undermine the functioning of governance.
      I would have had no qualms if the Government had returned with a definition that had been expanded in those terms. I understand that the definition proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North is based on suggestions from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. My attempt is based on the wording used in the Australian criminal code, and I am sure that Liberty has offered advice on the wording used in the Liberal Democrat version. However, any of those alternatives would be a welcome departure from the broad-brush definition in the Bill.
      The definitions proposed in the amendments would help the House to avoid the sophistry or the confusion involved in redefining terrorism in terms of threats to person or property, rather than to the prospects of governance and to civil society. Briefly, my preference would be that terrorist acts would be defined as acts that create public fear in order to coerce or undermine institutions of democratic governance.
      The important point is that terrorist acts threaten the functioning of society and state, not the security of individuals and property within that society. That is adequately covered in our framework of civil and criminal law—as it should be—but it is wrong for the House to be confused about the reach of anti-terrorist legislation and the reliability of criminal and civil legislation. By failing to grasp this point, the Government have produced a definition that must be amended if we are to avoid the horrendous social division and wretched undermining of civil rights that would follow from it.
      9.30 pm
      I should like to illustrate some of the catch-all consequences of not amending the definition. Clause 1 refers to serious violence against any person or property as part of
      advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
      We need to take stock of where that leads. Almost all Labour Members would have to list a long catalogue of causes with which they have been directly associated, in their careers in Parliament and outside, and which would be caught under the new rubric of the definition of terrorism.
      People participating in the miners' strike and Grunwick were responsible for serious damage to property. Their motivation was undoubtedly political or ideological. Regardless of whether they were dealt with well or badly, they were properly dealt with under the framework of

      393
      industrial and criminal law. It would be wrong for us simply to presume that what was missing at the time was the ability of the Government of the day to redefine those activities as acts of terrorism.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is looking back on his youth, when he was no doubt a participant in some of the anti-Vietnam demonstrations. In his middle years, he may well have been a participant in the community charge demonstrations in Trafalgar square. Will he reflect on the fact that both those activities undoubtedly fall within the scope of clause 1 and are therefore potentially terrorist acts?
      Mr. Simpson: I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's propositions. I will try and list the other charges that I would like to be taken into account.
      Mr. John McDonnell: There is no time for that.
      Mr. Simpson: The causes with which Labour Members have identified and which would be caught under the definition would include activities at Greenham common and those of the women at Menwith Hill, who regularly take down the fencing at the American spy base. They would include the activities of the women involved in the Trident Ploughshares campaign and those who broke in and damaged the Hawk aircraft. They would include the activities of animal rights protesters, activists who knowingly destroy fields of genetically modified crops and those who oppose live animal exports. From a different political perspective, they would also include the activities of anti-abortion campaigners.
      It is not a matter of whether I agree with those campaigns. If people commit breaches of the criminal law, they should be dealt with under that criminal law. But it is quite wrong for us to give the Government the power to redefine whole tranches of social protest movements as though they were acts of terrorism. The implications for society are horrendous.
      Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. Friend reflect on an example that he has not given? I refer to support for the African National Congress during the course of the apartheid struggle. It is a singular problem for one of our distinguished Ministers of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that last week he would have lost his right to jury trial in respect of the bank theft with which he was unjustly charged, and this week he would be prosecuted under clause 1 for his activities regarding the ANC. As the same can be said for most of us, it would have been a happy band of brothers in the dock.
      Mr. Simpson: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for those comments. As usual, he is several steps ahead of where I intended to go, but he is right.
      Where would those caught in the net of the new definition of terrorism find themselves? Clause 1(1)(c) refers to terrorism if there is
      a serious risk to the health or safety of the public.
      Again, such terrorism could be driven by support for a political or ideological cause. Where would that place the threat of strikes within essential public services—the national health service or the fire service—or by air traffic
      394
      control and power workers? Could many of those workers find themselves not in breach of employment law, but being charged with terrorist offences?
      The decision warrants much more serious thought and reflection, rather than calling on an in-built majority, which may be used in pursuit of an act of folly.
      People who are so charged would face a number of consequences, which are defined in later clauses. They would certainly be exposed to the prospect of arrest without warrant, which is defined in clause 40. They might also be guilty by association. Clauses 15 to 18 define the framework within which groups of people will be committing terrorist offences if they raise funds for such causes and organisations or encourage others to do so. If they are found guilty of those charges, they will face a prison sentence of up to 14 years.
      Clause 19 almost provides for guilt by suspicion. If one suspects that a person—perhaps a relation, someone who lives next door or whom one works alongside—supports one of the proscribed causes, but one fails to notify a constable, one is also guilty of an offence, for which one could be imprisoned for up to five years. Many hon. Members who were not directly involved in some of the campaigns that I listed would certainly have attended meetings and fund-raising events in support of those self same causes.
      Mr. Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman's case is persuasive. He has set out the huge implications for civil liberties if the clause is not amended. That case could have been made by any principled Labour or Liberal Democrat Member in the past 20 years. Can he explain why the Government are failing to hear his logic or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)?
      Mr. Simpson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait a long time for such an explanation. I cannot come up with one for myself, let alone for anyone else. It is utterly perplexing that we should apparently be wedded to a definition that threatens to undermine so sweepingly civil liberties and the credibility of governance itself. I cannot fathom why we should feel propelled to charge down such a catastrophic path.
      However, it does not end there. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) pointed out, clause 1(2)(c), which sets the provision in an international context, means that large numbers of us who actively supported the anti-apartheid campaign, the case for freeing Nelson Mandela, and the African National Congress, would clearly have been in breach of this Bill. It would be a wonderful way to get shot of a Labour majority at a stroke—it might even clear our Benches entirely. That would be the electoral aspiration of most of the Opposition parties. However, such heroic acts of self-sacrifice are not to be recommended to the Government—certainly not from within the Labour party.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend has made much of the past in South Africa. Is he aware that, at present, in many countries, even wholly peaceful opposition forces to military dictatorships are routinely labelled as terrorist organisations by their Governments? Under the Bill, someone from a country that is deemed to have an independent judicial service—

      395
      however doubtful some of us might be about that definition—could be prosecuted in this country for being part of a peaceful, exiled opposition to the Government of such a country.
      Mr. Simpson: I realise that. It is important to make the serious point that the international dimension is not only reminiscence; it relates to conditions in today's world. The definition would apply not only to conflict with a Government; it could apply equally to the Ogoni people's conflict with Shell and Shell's property. It could apply to the conflict between Amazonian Indians and the logging corporations that would destroy their natural habitat, their lives and livelihood. The reach of this definitional clause is frightening in its implications.
      Moreover, there is a serious prospect that the international roles played by organisations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Christian Aid or War on Want could be defined as collusively involved in active terrorism, because those organisations support actions that confront the power of corporations and may damage their property. We have made a fundamental misjudgment of what a relevant and appropriate definition of terrorism should be in the Bill.
      In the world in which we are trying to function and of which we are trying to make sense, one of the strong motive forces is power and pressure from global corporations. They want terrorist legislation to protect their property. They want us to put the protection of corporate fiefdoms at the head of civil societies. By including the property reference in our definition, we would be doing precisely that.
      Global organisations are already conducting a battle of language through much of the campaign literature that they produce. They refer to environmental protesters as "environmental terrorists". They want us to describe those who protest against the building of roads, dams and oil extraction plants and against forest exploitation not as eco-protesters, but as eco-terrorists. That is what the Bill would do. It would give a facade of protection to corporate fiefdoms through repressive legislation.
      Mr. McNamara: Does my hon. Friend agree that many corporate organisations are themselves arming dissidents to protect their property?
      Mr. Simpson: Indeed. The one solace that I might have drawn from the measure would have been if it gave the House the power to prosecute those corporations under terrorism provisions, rather than to prosecute those who protest against the corporations. Sadly, the opposite will be true; the exploitation of people and the planet will not be reined in by the Bill.
      If the House is to understand anti-terrorism legislation, that legislation must address extraordinary circumstances. It is not legislation for all seasons and, because it addresses extraordinary circumstances, it must have extraordinary clarity. The definitional clause does not offer that. On the contrary, it offers confusion and a potential threat to the security and stability of civil society, which is in excess of any threat that it could claim to remove or to offer protection from. That is why I ask the House, and the Government, to support the amendment.
      396
      The existing definition will be as counter-productive as it is repressive. What begins by putting society in chains will end by putting the Government on trial. If we do not amend the definition, the House will be found wanting.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Hogg: I find myself in considerable sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), and I broadly support what he said.
      We need to understand that this debate is right at the heart of the Bill because the definition of terrorism is the Bill's essential focus for the reason advanced by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), which is that if an activity falls within the definition, the whole weight of the Bill falls on the individuals and institutions concerned. He cited some of those consequences, which include restrictions on the power to raise money, the rights of entry of the police and the right to require answers to questions. They are all detailed in the Bill.
      The question that we must all ask about any activity is not whether it should be criminal, but whether the additional consequences contained in the Bill should fall on the individuals and institutions involved. In my view, there are many activities that are manifestly criminal but that should not in any circumstances be deemed terrorist. I think of two groups who perform activities that I particularly dislike. The first is hunt saboteurs. The second is GM protesters, of whom I do not think very much. However, I ask myself whether their activities should be deemed terrorist. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South mentioned many activities, and some of them should be criminal and some should not, but none of them should be deemed terrorist.
      Those who demonstrated in Trafalgar square against the community charge committed serious offences against the criminal law, but I ask myself whether that was intrinsically a terrorist activity. I think back to the days of the anti-apartheid demonstrations, which the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) cited. The great majority of hon. Members, whether or not they approved of the demonstrations and what happened in them, would agree that in no sense should they be classed as terrorist. An example from my youth is the anti-Vietnam demonstrations. To be honest, I do not like demonstrations of any kind because they almost always involve violence and their character is often criminal, but in no sense should they be deemed terrorist.
      Once one starts from the proposition that that range of activities should not be classed as terrorist, one goes to the Bill and, I regret to say, the amendments, and starts by considering the Government's definition of terrorism. I am sure that Ministers will forgive me for saying that the definition means that all the activities to which I have referred run the risk of falling within the category of a terrorist activity, which is not to say that they would always fall within that category. That risk cannot be right.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reflect on the fact that these proceedings in the House are intrinsically linked to last week's proceedings? The truth is that if many of those offences were charged as terrorism, a jury would have no problem in throwing out such nonsense. The offences would plainly fall within the definition of terrorism,

      397
      but no jury would have any of it. However, taken with the erosion of the right to jury trial, these two parallel moves are deeply worrying.
      Mr. Hogg: I agree only in part with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He and I have agreed in many ways for 30 years, even though we come from different political traditions; we have known and worked with each other for many years. I shall not digress far, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but he and I stood together against the legislation that restricted trial by jury, because we both disagreed with the proposals that it contained. One of the reasons was that juries act as the public conscience: sometimes, when the elements of an offence are made out, the consequences appear so absurd that the jury as the public conscience recognises the absurdity and refuses to convict. The point on which I disagree with him is that he appears to be affected by a slight misconception. Clause 1 does not create new offences; it triggers consequences and attracts penalties and sanctions to those individuals who are doing things that are classified as terrorist. Therefore, his point is not quite the same as mine, although it is very nearly the same.
      Mr. McDonnell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that clause 1 also confers new powers, specifically in respect of the police. If the clause had been in force, the poll tax demonstration could have been prevented—he might think that would have been a good thing—as could any demonstration on the say so of one constable saying that a terrorism investigation was under way.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is wholly right, and that point lies at the core of my objections.
      I hear mutterings from the Treasury Bench, so I shall face their source. Ministers say that clause 1 does not have the wide effect that we say that it does; well, let us examine clause 1 and see whether two activities—those I especially dislike: the actions of hunt saboteurs, and the anti-poll tax demonstration—fall within the class of clause 1 terrorist activity.
      The clause states:
      "terrorism" means the use or threat, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, of action.
      Let us start with the purpose test. Hunt saboteurs are certainly advancing an ideological cause—they would say so and, as a matter of law, they would be right; so would the police, and they would be right too. The community charge demonstrators in Trafalgar square were certainly advancing a political cause and, for that matter, an ideological cause. Therefore, the purpose test is made out.
      Of course, such activities are not "terrorist" unless they fall foul of subsections (1)(a), (b) and (c). Subsection (1)(a) speaks of action that
      involves serious violence against any person or property.
      In Trafalgar square, there was serious violence against both persons and property. In many demonstrations against fox hunting, serious violence is committed against persons and property. The clause continues, referring to action that
      endangers the life of any person.
      398
      In Trafalgar square, the police were very much at risk and they said so at the time. Subsection (1)(c) refers to action that
      creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.
      Fox hunters consider themselves to be at serious risk, and the Trafalgar square rioters certainly put the public at serious risk.
      There is absolutely no doubt that the classes of activity that I have described fall within the scope of clause 1. It is misleading for Ministers to deny that.
      Mr. Fisher: The right hon. and learned Gentleman lays great emphasis on the word "action", but is not clause 1 more complicated, and its implications worse, than he has said, in that the threat of action triggers the same consequences as action itself? Therefore a letter to a newspaper threatening to commit such action, or an interview on a local radio station in which a person announces his intention, or hope, of burning a field of GM crops, would bring all the consequences triggered under clause 1. Does not the definition used in the clause throw our definition of terrorism far too wide?
      Mr. Hogg: I was focusing on the most graphic examples, but the hon. Gentleman is wholly right. The threat is sufficient to constitute the activity as potentially terrorist. The House would agree a wrong thing if it accepted the clause.
      There have been attempts to address the problem in several amendments, my own included. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) produced one set of amendments, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey another. I modestly produced a third—amendment No. 200, which was not selected.
      I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will forgive me if I say that they have not resolved the problem. If they ask themselves the rhetorical question—I shall not take them through the detail, as I have already done so—"Would the fox hunting saboteurs be caught by their amendments?", the answer is yes.
      I see the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey looking at his amendment No. 190. In the purpose section, it states:
      to intimidate or coerce a government, one or more political bodies or organisations, the public or—
      this is what I underline—
      any section of the public for political ends.
      Let us consider the last set of phrases and ask ourselves whether hunt saboteurs fall within that group. They certainly create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public—that is, fox hunters—with the purpose of coercing those who go fox hunting. I am using the example of fox hunting because I must use an example, but the same applies to the demonstrators in Trafalgar square, and I can perform exactly the same exercise with exactly the same consequences to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hull, North.
      We must come to a conclusion. I believe that none of the amendments sufficiently addresses the problem that I have identified. I tried to do so through amendment No. 200, which narrows the definition of "violence" so that violence constitutes only threats to life. Even that is imperfect. The truth, I suspect, is that we cannot properly

      399
      reconcile what the Government seek to do—I accept their good motives—with the aims of those of us who want to defend civil liberties and political freedoms.
      My belief is that the difficulties associated with the definition are so great as to mean that the Bill is fatally flawed. That is the conclusion to which I think I come. It may be that others cleverer than I, here or in another place, can so define "terrorism" that it does not have the objectionable consequences which I believe that the present definition has. However, they have not done so yet. They have tried, but I suspect that they will not succeed. If that is indeed the case, the clause and most of the Bill should be rejected.
      Mr. Gapes: I shall try to be brief. I speak as someone who supported the African National Congress, opposed the Vietnam war and supported non-violent direct action. The past hour has been a litany of scare stories and worst-case scenarios such as I have seldom heard.
      My constituents and most people in the United Kingdom want to be able to travel on international aircraft without threat of being blown up. They want to be able to have a meal in McDonald's, as two of my close friends were doing when damage to the ceiling was caused by the Canary wharf bombing. They want to be able to go about their lives without the threat of internationally motivated, funded and organised terrorism. That is the essence of the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said that there was no threat. I do not know which world he is living in. The world contains well-organised, well-funded international terrorist organisations which operate in one country, plan their activities in a second country, have members who live in a third country, and get their finance from a fourth country. The Bill is trying to provide for effective anti-terrorism legislation. We can debate definitions of terrorism, and I accept that there are difficulties. However, we should not put ourselves in a position where, because of arguments about definition—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Terrorism Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
      The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 40.

      Division No. 110]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Beggs, Roy

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Allen, Graham

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Benton, Joe

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ashton, Joe

      Berry, Roger

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Best, Harold

      Austin, John

      Blackman, Liz

      Banks, Tony

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Barnes, Harry

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Battle, John

      Borrow, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Bradshaw, Ben

      400

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Browne, Desmond

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Burgon, Colin

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Healey, John

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cann, Jamie

      Heppell, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hill, Keith

      Casale, Roger

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hope, Phil

      Chaytor, David

      Howarth Alan (Newport E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hurst, Alan

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hutton, John

      Clelland, David

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Clwyd, Ann

      Illsley, Eric

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jenkins, Brian

      Colman, Tony

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Connarty, Michael

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Corston, Jean

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Cox, Tom

      Cranston, Ross

      Jones Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Crausby, David

      Jones, Dr Lynee (Selly Oak)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Cryer, John (Honrchurch)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cummings, John

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Darvill, Keith

      Khabra, Piara S

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kidney, David

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davies Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Laxton, Bob

      Dawson, Hilton

      Lepper, David

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Leslie, Christopher

      Dowd, Jim

      Levitt, Tom

      Drew, David

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Linton, Martin

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lock, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Love, Andrew

      Ennis, Jeff

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Etherington, Bill

      McCabe, Steve

      Fisher, Mark

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Flint, Caroline

      McDonnell, John

      Flynn, Paul

      McFall, John

      Forsythe, Clifford

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McIsaac, Shona

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Gapes, Mike

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McWalter, Tony

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McWilliam, John

      Maginnis, Ken

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Mallaber, Judy

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Goggins, Paul

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Maxton, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Meale, Alan

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Merron, Gillian

      Grogan, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Gunnell, John

      Moffatt, Laura

      401

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Morley, Elliot

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

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

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Mountford, Kali

      Soley, Clive

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Olner, Bill

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Neill, Martin

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Pearson, Ian

      Stringer, Graham

      Pendry, Tom

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pickthall, Colin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pike, Peter L

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pond, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Pound, Stephen

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Thompson, William

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Timms, Stephen

      Purchase, Ken

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Todd, Mark

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Touhig, Don

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Trickett, Jon

      Rammell, Bill

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)

      Rapson, Syd

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Tynan, Bill

      Rogers, Allan

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Rooney, Terry

      Watts, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      White, Brian

      Rowlands, Ted

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Winnick, David

      Salter, Martin

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wise, Audrey

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wood, Mike

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Woolas, Phil

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Worthington, Tony

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Singh, Marsha

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. David Jamieson and

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Ballard, Jackie

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

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

      Breed, Colin

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Livsey, Richard

      Burnett, John

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Burstow, Paul

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Moore, Michael

      Chidgey, David

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Cotter, Brian

      Oaten, Mark

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Rendel, David

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Sanders, Adrian

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

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

      Hancock, Mike

      Stunell, Andrew

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      402

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Willis, Phil

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Tyler, Paul

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wallace, James

      Mr. Tom Brake and

      Webb, Steve

      Mr. Norman Baker.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Gapes: As I was saying, the legislation is important in enabling the country to play its role in the international fight against terrorism. We were told by earlier speakers that, for some reason the definition should be changed to exclude—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but we are in the middle of a serious debate, and the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) is entitled to a reasonable hearing.
      Mr. Gapes: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The Liberal Democrats have told us that they want to exclude reference to property. I want to raise two issues which I think show the error of their position.
      First, let us suppose that a terrorist organisation decided to blow up the Eros statue, Nelson's column or the Palace of Westminster, having, in the latter case, given considerable notice allowing the evacuation of the Houses of Parliament. Presumably, according to the Liberal Democrats' definition, those perpetrating the crime would not be subject to a charge of terrorism.
      Secondly, there is the problem of the intentions of those who commit crimes. Presumably, at least according to the Liberal Democrats' barristers, if a person attacked a building or monument with the intention of not injuring human life, but if someone happened to be in the building or was passing it, that person's defence would be that he had had no intention of endangering life, and he would therefore be acquitted.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is making a fundamental error. Those involved in his two examples could be charged with other substantive offences under the criminal law, but the Bill does not create an offence of terrorism.
      Mr. Gapes: I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the definition in clause 1, which states that
      "terrorism" means the use or threat, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, of action which … involves serious violence … endangers … life … or … creates a serious risk to … health or safety.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South implied that the word "which" did not appear in the definition. His argument was based on the assumption that the first sentence in itself would make a person guilty of terrorism—that someone who was committed to an ideological cause would be, by definition, a terrorist. That is absurd.
      10.15 pm
      I do not believe that, under the Bill, Nelson Mandela could ever have been put on trial. He certainly could not

      403
      have been convicted in any court under it. Any Crown Prosecution Service prosecutor who decided to go through that process would not have put him on trial under the Bill. It is palpably absurd to think that there would ever be a conviction.
      Similarly, we could use criminal damage or some other legislation, but we could not use terrorism legislation when people destroy crops in fields—one of the scare stories that we have heard. It is fanciful. It is based on worst-case, scare-story scenarios that are designed to frighten people off from introducing effective legislation to combat terrorism.
      This country needs legislation, so that it is not a safe haven for people who plan crimes in one country and seek refuge in another. We have had examples of that. We know that the people who perpetrated the fascist bombing in Bologna have been living in Brighton for many years. They planned it, organised it and have been running neo-Nazi book shops in Brighton. It is time that we had effective measures to combat international terrorism, whatever the source.
      I hope that the Liberal Democrats will think carefully about their position. This country must be at the forefront of international co-operation. That is what internationalism is about. The Liberal Democrats do themselves and their internationalist ideals a disservice by not being prepared to take internationally effective action to combat terrorism.
      Mr. Maginnis: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is not in the Chamber on this unique occasion: for the first time in 17 years, he and I have the same objective. That objective is to define terrorism. However, in case he takes what I say too seriously, may I allude to amendment No. 122, which suggests that we insert
      the commission of, or the threat to commit, any criminal act with the intention of
      (a) putting the public or any section of the public in fear.
      That is such a flawed amendment. It shows the difficulty that we have with the definition of terrorism.
      It is a criminal act for a young hooligan to throw fireworks through the letter box of a pensioner and thus endanger that person's life. Under the amendment, that would be not a criminal act, which can be dealt with under normal legislation, but a terrorist offence. That would be folly.
      While I am talking about folly, I am rather puzzled by amendment No. 123, which wants to change the phrase
      endangers the life of any person
      to
      seriously endangers the life of any person.
      I wonder what the difference is. If the hon. Gentleman endangered my life, I might end up dead. I presume that he means that, if he seriously endangered it, I would end up very dead.
      Dr. Godman: Seriously dead.
      Mr. Maginnis: Indeed.
      404
      At the same time, I have serious concerns about the definition of terrorism in the Bill. I would delete virtually all of clause 1. It is a catch-all, but it does not adequately define what we mean by terrorism.
      My definition of terrorism is that it is a conspiracy by three or more persons to use or threaten violence against society and/or property for the purpose of undermining or destroying institutions of the state. In Committee, the Minister displayed commodities that have become rarer during the 17 years that I have been in the House—considerable patience and courtesy. I hope that he will take what I say about the Bill in the spirit in which I intend it.
      The Minister inherited an absolute mish-mash. We should have two Bills—one to deal with national terrorism against this democratic state, and another to deal with international terrorism being carried out from within this state against another. That would enable us clearly and meaningfully to define terrorism for, dare I say, the selfish, introverted needs of our own nation.
      The problems of legislation on terrorism were highlighted by earlier mentions of that which followed the Omagh bombing. Whatever the good intentions behind it, it has proved unnecessary and has not been used. The Terrorism Bill also contains elements that will never be used because they are impracticable and do not relate to activities that endanger or undermine institutions of the state.
      We have a democratic system, and we know what we mean by the institutions of state. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is too explicit, listing political parties, groups and organisations, all of which are part of the institutions of state, as we understand that phrase. The Minister may be unable to deal with this point now, but when the Bill moves on to another place, I ask him seriously to consider the possibility of defining terrorism in terms of needs within this state and in terms of what can be implemented understandably.
      I have nothing more to say. We need two Bills, not one. We need a simple definition of terrorism, based on violence or the threat of violence intended to undermine the institutions of this democratic state.
      Mr. Fisher: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who has had to live under the shadow of terrorism as hon. Members from English or Welsh constituencies have not had to do. I listened carefully to his comments and to all of the debate. I was not a Committee member, and therefore was not party to the detailed speculation on the various definitions of terrorism in use in international conventions, in the United Nations and in other countries.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), who was on the Committee, seems confused about the Bill. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, the Bill does not create an offence of terrorism. The offences created by the Bill are in clauses 11, 12 and 13—which deal with belonging to a proscribed organisation, supporting that organisation and wearing the uniform of that organisation. Clause 1 defines terrorism and, by doing so, triggers the very serious and sombre treatment of someone who is so defined. It is essential—not because we are creating an offence of terrorism, which we are not

      405
      doing, but because we are creating a sequence of treatment—that we get that definition right. The definition in the Bill is totally baffling and incorrect.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South is the only person who has spoken in support of the Bill's definition. However, with due respect to him, he did not support the Bill's definition; he supported its aims—to be tough on terrorism. Not a single hon. Member or other person in the United Kingdom has any time for terrorism at all. My hon. Friend therefore chose the wrong subject. We are all with him and the Government in seeking to eliminate terrorism from society. However, in clause 1, we are doing something completely different—we are redefining what we mean by terrorism. Therefore, the wording of clause 1 is crucial.
      It is no good my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South simply saying that we need not pay attention to worst-case scenarios or to hysterical thinking. If the Bill defines terrorism in such and such a manner, that would become the legal definition of terrorism. However, the Bill's definition of terrorism makes no sense whatsoever.
      The crucial words in clause 1 are, first, "use" and "threat"; secondly, "political, religious and ideological" causes; and, thirdly,
      serious violence against any person or property.
      If we put those three things together, all the possibilities described by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would become real.
      A threat is a part of the Bill's definition of terrorism. Therefore, a statement in an interview on a radio station or in a letter to a newspaper that "I intend to burn a crop of GM food" would become part of a terrorist activity. Subsequently, the terrorist activity would be compounded if there were violence, such as burning a crop. If the violence were directed against property—such as a crop—it would also fall within the definition, especially if the violence were being done to serve an ideological purpose, such as pursuing a vendetta against GM crops.
      It does not matter whether the purpose of the activity is good or bad. The consequence of the Bill's definition is that it would be a terrorist activity to write a letter saying that one will burn a crop of GM corn. There is no way of getting around that. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South would consider that to be a worst-case scenario, but that is what the Bill would entail.
      I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I am not very keen on hunt saboteurs or some of the actions of people who are against animal experiments. They may have virtuous intent, but their actions are often pretty unpleasant. However, it is nonsense to propose that such people should be defined by our society as terrorists, yet the Bill would do just that.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said, certainly Labour Members—I suspect Liberal Democrats too—have all been guilty of these things. Certainly during the miners' strike we all pushed down fences and gates. I did it at the Hem Heath colliery, the Florence colliery and elsewhere—
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Hogg: Surely not.
      Mr. Fisher: I certainly did and I would do it again as it was in a good cause. The idea that I was committing an act of terrorism is absolute nonsense. I believe that would be generally accepted. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) who is no longer in his place said, a jury would probably acquit one, but that misses the point of the Bill. It is not about whether or not one would be convicted of terrorism; it is about what is in the Bill. The Bill redefines terrorism in a totally nonsensical way.
      Mr. Frank Cook: Will my hon. Friend comment on the case of an individual who sought my help? He was in custody on suspicion of robbing a post office but, for the sake of avoiding the restrictions in criminal law, he had been detained under the PTA. If that can happen under the existing system, what prospect is there of protecting people under the system that is about to be introduced?
      Mr. Fisher: I do not know that case, which is an interesting inversion of the proposal we are discussing. I should have thought that the criminal law gave the police and the prosecuting authorities perfectly adequate means of dealing with a person who had committed a criminal offence. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who knows the law better than most of us, has said several times, the criminal law can deal with actions against property and against the person. I cannot think of anything that the criminal law does not cover. That requires us to be much more detailed and specific about what we mean by an act of terrorism that is distinct from normal criminal activity. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said about the debate in Committee and the various speculations. I am sorry that I was not party to that discussion. It is extremely difficult to establish a definition, and we are not doing so by any of the proposed amendments, well intentioned though they are.
      In amendment No. 122, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) concentrates on motivation. I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment, but the criticisms that have been made are valid. Motivation rather misses the point.
      Mr. McNamara: My amendment proposes that motivation should not be taken into consideration, but that it should be concentrated on as the cause.
      Mr. Fisher: I beg my hon. Friend's indulgence. I am sorry if I misled the House as I would not want to misinterpret his speech.
      I sympathise with the thrust of amendment No. 190, but as it retains the words "violence against the person" and the word "threat", it does not overcome some of my objections.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: We are all seeking a way forward. Between us, at least we have proposed a way of getting rid of some of the mischief. For example, amendment No. 193 would exclude violence to property with no risk to the public or individuals. I am sure that the hon.

      407
      Gentleman realises that to make the Bill perfect may require a combination of factors, but after tonight at least it will be better—and narrower—than it was when it first came to the House.
      Mr. Fisher: I do not want to go too far down that path, because the House wants to make progress, but I think that the amendments are all designed to pare away certain elements rather than identifying what is specific about terrorism. Surely a threat to the security of the state is at the heart of what most of us mean by terrorism as well as of most dictionary and legal definitions. None of the amendments quite achieves the aim.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey says that we are doing our best, but now that we are launched on the path of legislation we have to get it right, in another place if not here. I feel that we are very far from an adequate definition that would not be too wide for anybody with any flicker of libertarianism. As a libertarian, I am offended and deeply worried by the definition in the Bill. I will not vote for any of the amendments, but I cannot do what I presume the Government will ask and vote against them, because by so doing I would be implicitly supporting the definition in the Bill, which is dangerous, misguided and inadequate. I do not understand what led the Government to it. It is totally baffling.
      If the Government are simply sending a message that they are tough on terrorism and tough on the causes of terrorism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said, we would all say yea to that, but the definition goes much wider than that, and it is tough on many things that many of us would feel are totally outwith the ambit of terrorism.
      The fact that we have so many Government amendments says something about the inadequacy of resources for parliamentary drafting in recent years, but on so crucial a matter I do not believe that bad drafting can be blamed. I wait to hear what the Minister and the Government are seeking to do, but I am perfectly convinced that the definition in the Bill simply will not do.
      Mr. Lidington: The thrust of the amendments is to limit the scope of the definition of terrorism in clause 1. Some of them are designed to define terrorism more closely in terms of people with political rather than other objectives and others to delete references to attacks on property or to actions affecting persons and property overseas.
      I want to put my party's approach on the record. We accept that, as the Minister has acknowledged at all previous stages of our proceedings, there is a difficult balancing act to strike between effective counter-terrorism law and civil liberties. It is right that, throughout the Bill's passage through both Houses of Parliament, the detail of the definition of terrorism should be kept under review.
      I firmly believe that we need to have on the statute book powers for the police and the Executive against terrorist organisations. We need powers to search, to restrict fundraising and to detain. Those conclusions are shared not only by Conservative Members but by independent examiners of the legislation, including
      408
      Lord Lloyd of Berwick and Professor Wilkinson, who were appointed by the Government to carry out a thorough-going review of the law on terrorism.
      I believe, too, that it is right that this legislation should cover acts in respect of property. We surely cannot put ourselves in the lunatic situation in which an attack by the Provisional IRA on an empty office block, a railway junction, an airport building or Westminster Hall should somehow fall outwith the scope of anti-terrorism legislation because it had taken care to ensure that no human being would be at risk. If we adopted that approach, we would be saying to the police, "You may know from your intelligence that the Provisional IRA is responsible for that act of terrorism but, because of the way that we have drafted the definition, you are not allowed to use the powers of detention, stop and search and arrest that we have provided for you and other agencies in this legislation."
      In amendment No. 146, I have sought to address the worries that have been expressed that the Bill allows too wide a scope for actions against property alone to be brought within the law, and I welcome the Minister's comments on that in due course.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: I take the hon. Gentleman's point that the Bill should apply to the IRA in the circumstances that he has described, but surely it should be possible to word the clause that would catch such action. For example, the action against property could be coupled with the endangering of life, because the blowing up of such a large piece of property would be certain to endanger human life.
      Mr. Lidington: As regards property, it is right that the Bill should contain a general provision of the kind that the Government suggest. We can argue about the exact words that we would prefer but, given the ruthlessness and dedication of terrorist organisations, we need to include attacks against property, because they can be used to disrupt life in this country and other democratic societies as a means of intimidating the population and their Governments.
      Mr. Hogg: I do not think that many people would disagree with some parts of what my hon. Friend has said, but he needs to answer this question—if the result of drafting clauses that catch the IRA in the way that he has described is that they also catch many other organisations that are not trying to subvert the state, is it right to follow the course that he advocates?
      Mr. Lidington: It was made clear in Committee when the Minister responded to the concerns that had been expressed by several hon. Members about the matter that the Government envisaged that, in the normal course of events, most criminal offences would continue to be dealt with under the normal procedures of the criminal law. My right hon. and learned Friend is obviously worried that to trust in the judgment of the police and the courts is inadequate and that a new definition needs to be written into the law. However, I feel that we would fail in our duty if we narrowed the definition to such an extent that it failed to provide adequate protection against terrorist groups that have shown repeatedly that they are utterly careless of human life and well-being.

      409
      It is also right that the Bill should cover domestic terrorism and more than purely political objectives. We have seen the example of the Aum sect in Tokyo and the havoc that it wrought against innocent civilians. Some of the extreme, well-organised animal rights groups might also properly be treated as terrorist, because they are organised and have in the past used car bombs and like measures to harm men and women who are not politicians but research scientists or otherwise connected with a company whose policies on experimentation the groups seek to influence.
      It is right that the Bill should cover action overseas as well as in the United Kingdom, but I retain some reservations about that and 1 hope that the Government will reflect on the definition that they have applied. Given the attack on the United States embassy in Kenya, the outrages in the middle east and the assassination of democratic leaders such as Rajiv Gandhi, it seems right that our anti-terrorist legislation should catch the perpetrators of such crimes.
      10.45 pm
      Genuine unease has been expressed about whether the safeguards suggested by the Bill are adequate. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter: how does one deal with that problem? How does one deal with the difficulty caused when a group of people in the United Kingdom call for the overthrow by force of a tyrant in another country? The examples of Saddam Hussein and others were mentioned frequently earlier.
      Hon. Members have been right to draw such matters to the Minister's attention. I hope that the Government will continue to reflect on them as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: From the outset, the Government have been keen to emphasise the difficulty of defining this important matter. We have said, clearly and explicitly, that a balance must be drawn between the need to fight international terrorism—many reports confirm that that is a real threat in the modern world, which we must combat if we are to protect our citizens—and the need to protect individual liberties. That is a very hard question of judgment.
      On Second Reading on 14 December—three months and one day ago—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I both stated that we were ready to consider other, better wordings and definitions to deal with these matters. We said that we were prepared to look at better forms of definition, and I repeated that commitment more than once in Committee. Much of this evening's debate has centred on questions of wording.
      I want to take this opportunity to thank Liberty and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Both organisations have made serious efforts to draft alternative clauses in response to the invitation from me and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Their work is to be commended. Although I do not agree with every word that they offered, I accept that they took on the challenge, acknowledged the importance of addressing the problem of international terrorism, and sought a better definition than the one offered by the Government.
      It would be churlish not to acknowledge those two pieces of work, which underlie the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
      410
      The Government started from the viewpoint that the definitions in the prevention of terrorism and emergency provisions legislation had operated effectively and that changes should be made only where they could be justified. We were also firmly of the view that it was no longer defensible to confine the legislation to Irish and international terrorism, and to exclude the application of the definition to acts connected solely to the affairs of the United Kingdom.
      It is striking that, although there is much debate about what actions constitute so-called domestic terrorism, it appears to be generally agreed that the time has come to accept that some such actions should be caught. In deciding on a definition to put before the House, we also considered carefully the advice of Lord Lloyd. I shall not rehearse earlier debates, but we took very careful account of what he had to say.
      Finally, and most importantly, we bore in mind the purpose of the new definition as we worked it up. As I have stressed many times, there is no linked offence of terrorism. As is the case now, most terrorists will continue to be charged with offences under the ordinary criminal law. That is the essence of what we are talking about. The definition is in the Bill to trigger the availability, primarily to the police, of certain additional powers and specific offences that we believe are needed to disrupt and investigate terrorism in all its aspects. Although I acknowledge that it would be wrong to make these additional powers available too widely—that is one reason for raising the threshold to "serious violence" and tightening the definition that appears in previous prevention of terrorism Acts—it would be a massive mistake if we constructed a definition of terrorism that was too narrow and constrained the law enforcement agencies in their critical responsibility to fight terrorism.
      Mr. Baker: We heard earlier a litany of examples of what could be caught by the definition, from the Trafalgar square poll tax riots to pulling up GM crops. Is it the Minister's view that those activities would be caught by the definition and, if so, is it a price worth paying?
      Mr. Clarke: No, it is not my view, but I will be dealing at some length with the points that have been made in this discussion, and I will deal with that point then.
      We have consulted the police closely, and discussed the various acts with them. We believe that this definition will assist the law enforcement agencies. Should we go for a definition broad enough to catch the range of activities that we believe terrorists may undertake but that could potentially catch other activities? Or should we go for a narrow definition that limits the chances of catching actions some believe to be non-terrorist but which, by definition, involve serious violence or the like, but would fail to catch all the terrorist activity of which we are aware? That is the balance that the House must judge and that we have been trying to judge in the three months and a day since Second Reading.
      I come now to the amendments before us. Let me deal first with some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North. Amendment No. 122 refers to putting the public in fear. The proposition that any seriously violent act carried out to put the public in fear should be caught by the definition of terrorism could lead to an unacceptably wide definition—even wider than the one in the Bill.

      411
      The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred to hunt saboteurs, but other examples are equally controversial. The Yorkshire Ripper certainly put the public in fear—would that be categorised as a terrorist act? I do not think that it could be described as terrorist behaviour, but it would certainly have put the public in fear and would have been caught by the proposed definition. Apart from controversial activities such as demonstrations and hunt saboteurs, very serious crimes would, quite inappropriately, be caught by that definition.
      I agree that the notion of fear of terrorism is key to the concept of terrorism, but it is an over-simplification to suggest that all actions carried out to put the public in fear are acts of terrorism or could be so defined. They clearly are not. I believe that we need a different or additional filter, which is why we believe that the motivational approach which my hon. Friend does not like and seeks to remove by his amendment—that the act was carried out to advance a political, religious or ideological cause—is the right one. The motivation is what distinguishes other actions that put the public in fear from acts of terrorism.
      Mr. John Cryer: Would the definition in the Bill have caught the striking miners of 15 years ago and/or the people who supported the anti-apartheid movement during the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s?
      Mr. Clarke: As I said on Second Reading and thereafter, I believe that the answer to both questions is no.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has just conceded that hunt saboteurs, beastly though they are, should not be treated as terrorists. Will he accept that they are carrying out an act that falls within the scope of an act that is capable of being defined as terrorism under clause 1?
      Mr. Clarke: I do not accept that. That is the burden of what I will say when I come to the specific points that have been made. If I accepted the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, I would accept some of the comments that have been made in the debate, but I do not accept it.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Clarke: No, I will not. I wish to make more progress.
      Several hon. Members mentioned property. The Government stand by their view that violence against property can be terrorism—it is not necessarily, but it can be. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) gave some examples. The Canary wharf bombing is the most striking example in our recent history.
      What about a bomb, such as the one at Canary wharf, for which a lengthy and accurate warning is given and which destroys buildings? It does not seem logical that empty targets could be bombed and livelihoods and communities destroyed as a result, but that the police would not have at their disposal the powers and offences triggered by the definition of terrorism. The serious violence against property limb must be retained to deal with those far from fanciful examples.
      Mr. Hughes: The definition of terrorism is that it has to have a motivation—it could apply to property—that,
      412
      in the Government's wording, is "political, religious or ideological". In reality, anyone could define what they do in such a context. To be honest, that definition does not take anyone any further. Someone could say, "For me, this is an ideological matter. It is subjective; it is incapable of objective analysis by the court."
      Mr. Clarke: It is capable of objective analysis. The Bill establishes a massive process whereby the courts and the House will consider the definitions. We will all make our judgments, as will the courts. The Bill sets the context.
      Mr. David Winnick: I have no difficulty with the international terrorism provisions and I said so in an intervention on Second Reading. The powers are essential. However, I have many reservations about the matters raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer). Although the Minister dismissed the possibility, I am concerned, for example, that the miners' strike of 15 years ago and other actions—industrial or otherwise—could be included in the definition of terrorism. As someone who believes strongly in civil liberties, the right to demonstrate and the rest, I remain concerned about those aspects.
      Mr. Clarke: I hear my hon. Friend's comments and I appreciate the support that he offered on Second Reading and subsequently on other matters. I will deal with them.
      In Committee and today, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) openly argued for two Bills. First, I understand his arguments but, whether we have two Bills or one, we will not avoid having the definition. In either or both of the Bills, the issue would have to be dealt with. That could be done in the same way in both Bills, or in different ways, which would cause difficulties.
      Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that some legislation was not used. In Committee, he argued forcefully for the principle of deterrence that is used in much anti-terrorism legislation—to dissuade people from becoming involved in any way with terrorist activity. The fact that aspects of legislation have not been used is not a convincing argument.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) gave much the same speeches today as on Second Reading, although they were more lengthy and—to be frank—a little less coherent today. The logic of their argument is that we cannot find a definition. The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly suggested that, although I am not sure whether my hon. Friend would say the same.
      The logic of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position would be to vote against Third Reading because we should not have the Bill. In the balance that he weighs between the need to fight international terrorism and the need to protect individual liberties, he comes to the view that we should not use more legislation—I was going to say that we should forget the fight against international terrorism, but I do not mean that quite so pejoratively. He thinks that the liberties would be so challenged that we should forget the idea of taking extra powers. I see the logic of that position. However, it is not the same position as that of those who argue that our definition is amendable.

      413
      My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South gave a long list of examples and other hon. Members gave similar examples on Second Reading and at other times. I repeat what I said on those occasions: the legislation will give rise to no fears about the domestic political and industrial relations activities and so on that have been described during the debate. Part of the debate has been fanciful. A string of arguments have been pushed out that bear no relationship to the facts or to the potential of the Bill.
      11 pm
      Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again. Will he give us a further explanation as to why we should not be worried about the domestic position? He said that those activities would not be covered by the Bill. Why should they not be? I apologise to the House because I was not in the Chamber for some of the earlier speeches, but I heard the powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central—as did the Minister. Much concern and worry were expressed that certain activities would be defined as terrorism when in my view, and that of some of my hon. Friends, they should not be.
      Mr. Clarke: None of us thinks that the activities about which my hon. Friend is concerned should be defined as terrorism—no one in the whole House believes that.
      Mr. Tony Benn rose—
      Mr. Frank Cook rose—
      Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who was not in the Chamber for the debate. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook).
      Mr. Cook:I refer my hon. Friend to the example I gave earlier this evening. An individual was detained on suspicion of robbing a post office. Under the PTA provisions, he was detained without charge for an extraordinarily long period. His wife and his two sons were detained under the same provisions and subsequently released without charge. He was tried, sentenced and served his time. If that is permissible at present, what redress would people have against such abuse in the future?
      Mr. Clarke: I know nothing of the detail of the case, apart from what my hon. Friend said in his earlier intervention. Based on his description, it would seem to be an abuse of current law and would thus be an abuse of future law. No doubt, my hon. Friend will take up the case in the proper way.
      Mr. McDonnellrose—
      Mr. McNamararose—
      Mr. Clarke: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North.
      Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend said categorically that offences such as those listed by many hon. Members would not be caught by the legislation. Why?
      Mr. Clarke: As I said earlier, under the definition in clause 1, it is clear that the cause of the actions in the demonstrations that have been mentioned would not have been to endanger people's lives, nor to engage in serious violence and so on. That is why—
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Clarke: I shall not continue to give way, but I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell).
      Mr. McDonnell: I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that, if I were to come up before a court on such matters, he would be sitting on the bench. The miners' strike has been mentioned several times. That was an ideological cause. There is no doubt that the general secretary of the miners union at that time was pursuing a socialist cause in that strike. Furthermore, the strike involved serious violence against persons and property. Indeed, some of the Members who spoke in the debate admitted to that. The strike endangered life; it created a serious risk to the health and safety of the public. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, it is not up to him to decide on the definitions; a judge would do so—on that basis, we should be guilty.
      Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right to say that, at the end of the day, it would be for a judge to decide. However, I was asked for my view as to whether the miners' strike and various other actions could be caught by the legislation. I do not believe that they would. I said that on Second Reading, and have continued to say so all through the Bill's proceedings.
      Dr. Lynne Jones rose—Dr. Lynne Jones rose—
      Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way again except to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey because I want to make a point about the Liberal Democrat position that he may need to address.
      I have tried to point out that the issue in the balance is whether we have such legislation at all. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has concluded that we should not.
      If one takes the view that there ought to be such legislation, the consequence is that one must have a definition of terrorism. I acknowledge the difficulty in drafting that definition, as I have done throughout the proceedings, and I have invited proposals for reaching a better definition. I have explained why we are not in a position to accept any of the amendments. They would not provide a better definition that the one offered in the Bill.
      When the Liberal Democrats decide whether to proceed with amendments Nos. 192 or 193—they are not consequential amendments but independent and separate amendments operating in different ways—they must consider what types of terrorist activity might not be covered if either of their amendments were to be carried. Would, for example, the Tokyo sarin attack be covered if amendment No. 192 were accepted? I suspect that it might not. There might well be other activities that would not be covered. The hon. Gentleman and his party will make a judgment on that, but there is a genuine issue of balance that has to be resolved.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister knows that my position has consistently been to seek a definition that

      415
      achieved widespread support; I have never renounced the idea of a definition. On that basis, will the Minister undertake to convene, before the Bill goes to the other place, a round table of all parties, legal advisers and interested groups? Will he undertake to get and place in the Library a legal opinion on whether the questions asked in the House about the implications—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not the only Member who has been guilty of making long interventions. I appeal to hon. Members to keep their interventions brief.
      Mr. Clarke: I will not convene a round table meeting. I have allowed three months and a day for people to make positive propositions. I have congratulated those organisations that have genuinely worked to that end and sought to analyse their ideas. Even at this late stage, I say again that, if there are further propositions, I will be happy to consider them before the Bill goes to the other place. However, I have not yet seen alternative definitions that are better than the one offered by the Government. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn or defeated.
      Mr. McNamara: I said at the start of the debate that I did not intend to divide the House on the amendment because I thought that there might be time for further thought. I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's reply to the questions that were raised. I am extremely disappointed by what he has said and by his attitude. This is a difficult matter, and it has caused grave concern in the House. Because of that, and because I do not believe that my hon. Friend has advanced sufficient reason for rejecting the amendment, I intend to divide the House, if I get the support of my colleagues.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 15, Noes 235.

      Division No. 111]

      [11.8 pm

      AYES

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Flynn, Paul

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Hancock, Mike

      Wise, Audrey

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Mr. John McDonnell and

      McNamara, Kevin

      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Allen, Graham

      Benton, Joe

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Berry, Roger

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Betts, Clive

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Blackman, Liz

      Austin, John

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Banks, Tony

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Barnes, Harry

      Borrow, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Browne, Desmond

      416

      Burden, Richard

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Burgon, Colin

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Cann, Jamie

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Casale, Roger

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Clapham, Michael

      Kemp, Fraser

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Kidney, David

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Clelland, David

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Clwyd, Ann

      Laxton, Bob

      Coaker, Vernon

      Lepper, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Leslie, Christopher

      Colman, Tony

      Levitt, Tom

      Connarty, Michael

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Corston, Jean

      Lidington, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Linton, Martin

      Cox, Tom

      Lock, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Love, Andrew

      Crausby, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cummings, John

      McCabe, Steve

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      McFall, John

      Darvill, Keith

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Dawson, Hilton

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Dowd, Jim

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Drew, David

      McWalter, Tony

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Edwards, Huw

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Flint, Caroline

      Maxton, John

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Meale, Alan

      Gapes, Mike

      Merron, Gillian

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Miller, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      Moffatt, Laura

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Godsiff, Roger

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Goggins, Paul

      Morley, Elliot

      Golding, Mrs Llin

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

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mountford, Kali

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Grogan, John

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hanson, David

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Healey, John

      Olner, Bill

      Hepburn, Stephen

      O'Neill, Martin

      Heppell, John

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Hill, Keith

      Pearson, Ian

      Hinchliffe, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hope, Phil

      Pike, Peter L

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Plaskitt, James

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Pond, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pope, Greg

      Hurst, Alan

      Pound, Stephen

      Hutton, John

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Illsley, Eric

      Purchase, Ken

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jenkins, Brian

      Rammell, Bill

      417

      Rapson, Syd

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Rooney, Terry

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Rowlands, Ted

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ruane, Chris

      Todd, Mark

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Touhig, Don

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Trickett, Jon

      Salter, Martin

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sawford, Phil

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Singh, Marsha

      Tynan, Bill

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smrth, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Watts, David

      White, Brian

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Soley, Clive

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wood, Mike

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Woolas, Phil

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Worthington, Tony

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stringer, Graham

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 193, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'or property'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 249.

      Division No. 112]

      [11.19 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Baker, Norman

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Ballard, Jackie

      Moore, Michael

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Breed, Colin

      Oaten, Mark

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Burnett, John

      Rendel, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

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

      Stunell, Andrew

      Chidgey, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Cotter, Brian

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Tyler, Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Wallace, James

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Webb, Steve

      Hancock, Mike

      Willis, Phil

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Wise, Audrey

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

      Mr. Adrian Sanders and

      Livsey, Richard

      Mr. Tom Brake.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Allen, Graham

      Austin, John

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Banks, Tony

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Barnes, Harry

      418

      Beard, Nigel

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Hanson, David

      Beggs, Roy

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Healey, John

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Benton, Joe

      Heppell, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hill, Keith

      Berry, Roger

      Hinchliffe, David

      Betts, Clive

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Blackman, Liz

      Hope, Phil

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Borrow, David

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Hurst, Alan

      Browne, Desmond

      Hutton, John

      Burden, Richard

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Burgon, Colin

      Illsley, Eric

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cann, Jamie

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Casale, Roger

      Cawsey, Ian

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Clapham, Michael

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Clelland, David

      Kemp, Fraser

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Khabra, Piara S

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Kidney, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Colman, Tony

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Connarty, Michael

      Laxton, Bob

      Corston, Jean

      Lepper, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Leslie, Christopher

      Cox, Tom

      Levitt, Tom

      Cranston, Ross

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Crausby, David

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Cummings, John

      Lidington, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Linton, Martin

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Lock, David

      Darvill, Keith

      Love, Andrew

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Luff, Peter

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dawson, Hilton

      McCabe, Steve

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Drew, David

      McFall, John

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Edwards, Huw

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Ennis, Jeff

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Flint, Caroline

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Flynn, Paul

      McWalter, Tony

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Maginnis, Ken

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gapes, Mike

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Maxton, John

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Meale, Alan

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Merron, Gillian

      Godsiff, Roger

      Miller, Andrew

      Goggins, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morley, Elliot

      Grogan, John

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

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mountford, Kali

      419

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Soley, Clive

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Olner, Bill

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Neill, Martin

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Pearson, Ian

      Stringer, Graham

      Pendry, Tom

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pickthall, Colin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pike, Peter L

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pond, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pope, Greg

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Thompson, William

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Timms, Stephen

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Tipping, Paddy

      Purchase, Ken

      Todd, Mark

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Touhig, Don

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Trickett, Jon

      Rammell, Bill

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rapson, Syd

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Tynan, Bill

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rooney, Terry

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Watts, David

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      White, Brian

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wilkinson, John

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Salter, Martin

      Wilshire, David

      Sawford, Phil

      Winnick, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Woolas, Phil

      Singh, Marsha

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 3

      PROSCRIPTION
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 186, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—

      '(ii) he has satisfied a judicial authority that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is concerned in terrorism; and

      (iii) that the judicial authority has issued a declaration that there are reasonable grounds for the exercise of the Secretary of State's power'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 187, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
      '(4A) In this section "judicial authority" means—

      (a) in England and Wales, the Lord Chief Justice or his designated appointee

      420

      (b) in Northern Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland or his designated appointee

      (c) and in Scotland, the Lord Advocate or his designated appointee.'.

      Government amendments Nos. 1 to 5 and 9.
      Amendment No. 162, in schedule 3, page 62, line 9, after "Chancellor", insert—
      'after consulting the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee'.
      Amendment No. 163, in page 62, line 33, after "may", insert—
      ', after consulting the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee,'.
      Government amendments Nos. 48 to 57, 95, 115 and 119.
      Mr. Hughes: One of the consequences of the definition of terrorism that we were debating on the last group of amendments is that, if an organisation is regarded as being concerned with terrorism, it can be proscribed. Under the present legislation there are 14 proscribed organisations, which are listed in a schedule to the current Bill and included in the existing emergency powers legislation. The list has remained the same for some time.
      The Bill will allow proscription in relation to United Kingdom and international organisations. In Committee, the Government implied that they would expect Northern Ireland or Irish organisations to remain proscribed and did not expect in the immediate future to add any United Kingdom-based organisations, but they did not preclude the possibility of adding non-UK organisations. I hope that I have represented them correctly. A political group in the middle east, for example, could be proscribed here, and could then be within the remit of the legislation. The same could apply to a political group in Africa or one in Pakistan.
      In Committee, we spent some time debating how Parliament regulates a decision to proscribe an organisation, and what then happens. The Bill allows the initiative to be taken by the Government; requires the Government to come to Parliament; and requires Parliament to approve the proscription of the organisation by a simple vote in both Houses. Then, and only then, can any organisation that thinks that it should not have been proscribed because its members are not terrorists start a process to undo the proscription.
      One of the arguments that struck us as central was that there should be a process, independent of the politicians, for adjudication on whether the criteria for proscription had been met before proscription had taken place.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman spoke of starting a process to undo the proscription. He was, of course, referring to the appeal procedure mentioned in clauses 4 and 5. As he will know, the criteria in clause 5 are the judicial review criteria. The decision to proscribe will not be reviewed on merit; rather, it will be asked whether it was an irrational decision. That is a quite different test.
      Mr. Hughes: With respect, I was about to deal with the fact that the procedure thereafter is only partial—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman put very well the way in which it is only partial.
      This is the process: the Secretary of State decides that an organisation ought to be proscribed; he presents an order to Parliament; there is a debate lasting an hour and

      421
      a half in both Houses, following which the Government would normally expect to whip their majority through the Lobby. Proscription then takes place immediately. Thereafter, there is a non-judicial process, starting with clause 4. Either the organisation concerned or anyone affected by the proscription, under regulations that have not yet been seen or approved, will apply to a proscribed organisations appeals commission.
      We had a big debate about whether what was appropriate was a commission—another body that would do only that job in the United Kingdom and that would be specially appointed. At no stage other than on a point of law and later can there be any legal review. From the discussions in Committee, it seems that an application can take place only on the basis of a failure of process—some technical deficiency—or on the basis of the court saying that the Secretary of State and Parliament could not reasonably have come to that decision. As colleagues will know, effectively, no opportunity is allowed for a judicial overturning of the decision.
      Mr. Winnick: Is there not a possibility that the amendment, although it might seem reasonable, would weaken the Government's powers to deal with some notorious organisations from abroad that are involved in terrorism and want to campaign on the most subversive grounds in this country? One or two organisations in the UK have been banned in countries in the middle east, yet operate freely here, intimidating students, in the main, from countries in the middle east, which is totally unacceptable.
      Mr. Hughes: I hope that I can persuade the hon. Gentleman that, while I accept what he has said, he can support the amendment. I accept his premise. There are such organisations. They do work here. They do have an effect on students and people who are nationals of the same country as their members who are now here, and who work in a way that we would not condone. We are clear that it is our policy and position that there should be a UK-wide legislative framework and that, in theory, it should be able to deal—it does not happen yet—with international or national organisations from abroad, so I am with him.
      Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that judicial review is not sufficient because it is hard to see a case being overturned by that means. But when the gays in the military case went to the European Court of Human Rights, it ruled that judicial review was not sufficient and that a case could be examined on its merits.
      Mr. Hughes: That is correct, for the reason that we discussed earlier. As of 2 October, everything in the Bill will be reviewable under the European convention in domestic courts in the UK. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, the convention was used to hold that fair process had not been provided, so the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a qualification to the rather limited review process.
      There is in the Bill a process for undoing proscription. In later clauses in the same part, there is a provision whereby the Secretary of State can come before the House to de-proscribe. That happens in a similar way.
      My hon. Friends and I are asking the House to agree to a proposition that says that it should not be for the Secretary of State alone—of whatever party, in whatever
      422
      Administration—to make a decision without someone other than politicians having a view that there is evidence sufficient to get across the threshold. I take the point of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). If he thinks about it, if Ministers wanted, on the basis of intelligence advice that they had received, to proscribe an organisation from the middle east, Northern Ireland or Ireland, they might not wish, or be in a position in the interests of security, to come to the House with the information. For understandable reasons, they might not be able to tell us all their reasons for wanting to proscribe an organisation. It has long been agreed that security matters are not discussed in the House. Answers from Prime Ministers have indicated that during every Administration since I have been a Member.
      That means that the most serious decisions could be taken about organisations of which we knew little. The organisation and everyone in it could be proscribed. There would be a remote chance of overturning proscription if an application were made in this country, although the organisation might not be based here, but the Minister who sought Parliament's approval on trust on the information that he had been given would be the only authority for its proscription.
      I do not mean to undermine the role of both Houses in questioning such decisions. On security matters, however, we know to our cost—although we have members of the Security and Intelligence Committee—that there are many things about which we are not told, and certainly things about which we are not told until long after the event. We seek to provide an external adjudicator who can consider the evidence to see whether a reasonable test has been passed. It would be bizarre not to do that.
      The Bill, which many of us consider draconian in many respects, requires police constables seeking certain things and those who request special powers to go to court to ask for them. It would be unusual if a move as draconian as proscription did not require a Minister to go to some authority independent of the state and the Executive before the event to say that evidence supported it.
      Amendment No. 186 makes a simple proposition. The Minister should satisfy a judicial authority that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an organisation is concerned in terrorism, and the judicial authority should issue a declaration that there are reasonable grounds for the exercise of the Secretary of State's power. That simple process of seeking a declaration is used every week in the courts under administrative law. A judge could hear the case in camera, and the Minister could come to the House with the authority of a declaration.
      11.45 pm
      Dr. Godman: I was going to ask the hon. Gentleman what he meant by a judicial authority, but he has told us that he means a judge who would deliver a formal opinion. May I point out that the Lord Advocate, who is referred to in proposed new section 4A(c), is a Law Officer and therefore a member of the Government? The hon. Gentleman may think the point technical, but he should refer—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may wish to make a speech, but his intervention is too long.
      Mr. Hughes: Judicial authorities are defined for other purposes elsewhere in the Bill. Sometimes the authority

      423
      is a senior magistrate. In this sort of case, according to the advice that I took—I do not pretend that it was the highest in the land—in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, the authority should be the Lord Chief Justice, who deals most with criminal matters. In Scotland, the position is slightly confused—I mean no criticism—by a recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights about when judicial appointees may have political roles. I am willing to be corrected: another senior judge may be more appropriate in Scotland. I shall not press amendment No. 187 to the vote because there may be better suggestions. However, the principle is that, in each of the three jurisdictions, a senior judge should be the person who issues a declaration that there is evidence for proscription.
      Dr. Godman: The Lord Advocate is not a judge but a Law Officer, and hence a member of the Government.
      Mr. Hughes: I know that. Nevertheless, the advice was given that he might be the appropriate person. The point that I was trying to make was that, because of a recent ruling—which the hon. Gentleman, as a Scottish Member, will know as well as if not better than I do—in Scotland, the issue of re-defining appointments is being considered. It has been ruled that in certain cases involving sheriffs, and in other matters that are not irrelevant to the issue that we are debating, there is a conflict.
      Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how the scrutiny of the judicial body would be more rigorous than the scrutiny of the House? He made the valid and justifiable point that the House might not have in its possession all the material necessary to scrutinise a case, but would not that apply also to the judicial body?
      Mr. Hughes: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's perfectly good question is that there is much precedent establishing the courts' ability to see in camera—effectively, in private—the Minister's evidence for proceeding with a case, although that evidence could not be provided to Parliament. Quite often, courts decide cases on the basis of papers that are given to them, and on which they form a view. I am not criticising the fact that Ministers could not give that material to Parliament. Ministers would give Parliament an assessment and some information, and offer a view on the case. However, at that stage, we would not necessarily be able either to question the assessment or to elicit necessary information.
      As the hon. Member for Walsall, North said, decisions sometimes have to be made quickly. If there were information about an imminent terrorist attack in this country by a foreign organisation—or about an attack abroad by an organisation based in the United Kingdom—action would have to be taken speedily. That does not mean that there should not be some way of our stopping that action being taken, to the severe detriment of individuals and organisations.
      We are trying to balance measures affecting the individual's liberty with security. Individuals could wake up one morning to discover that an organisation to which they belonged had been proscribed although they would have had no say at all in that decision, and no opportunity
      424
      to argue or resist the designation with all its consequences. We also have to consider the practical difficulties of overturning such a decision.
      The question is whether we should give powers only to the state, the Government and Parliament, or allow a body that is independent of politicians to make an adjudication. I hope that the House will feel that it is appropriate to provide for judicial oversight; that such oversight adds something; and that it will provide great protection, should severe action—proscribing an organisation—be taken. The United Kingdom has never taken such action against a non-Irish organisation.
      Mr. McNamara: I listened with increasing confusion to the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I have a gut feeling against any type of secret court, but he seemed to be describing precisely the type of situation—against which the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the gays in the military case—in which there is no opportunity to examine the case's merits.
      The hon. Gentleman has not thought the matter through. Although he rightly criticised the procedure proposed in the Bill, he has not stated clearly whether we should follow that procedure, accept the drawbacks of judicial review or accept the Strasbourg Court's action to overcome those drawbacks. Indeed, I thought that he slightly—but unintentionally—misled the House when he said that courts issue declarations every day. They do, but they give their reasons for doing so. They do not simply state, "On the evidence that I have seen—therefore … "
      Ever since the Scott inquiry, the courts have been scrupulous about issuing declarations such as public interest immunity certificates. Governments have to demonstrate whether issues are relevant to a specific decision, and whether material should be disclosed to the parties. I cannot envisage that the courts would want to find themselves subject to all sorts of criticism on the basis of their reaching decisions, when the people involved in the case know nothing about those decisions.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is looking at the purpose of proscription somewhat wrongly. I am not certain about the value of proscription, but I believe that its main purpose is to show society that to belong to or to support particular organisations is not desirable for a whole host of reasons—because they shoot people and do other nasty things seeking to subvert the state. The state must give reasons for proscription.
      It is worth arguing whether proscription is a good or bad idea, but reasons must at least be given for proscribing an organisation. If no reasons were given, one would want to know why an organisation was proscribed. The list of proscribed organisations shows that, at one time or another, they were associated with actions that, under the old legislation, would have been considered to be acts of terrorism.
      I object to the amendment on two grounds. First, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has not thought it through and, secondly, he has completely misinterpreted the role and purpose of proscription.
      Mr. Hogg: I shall be brief. This debate flows from the fact that we have a wide definition of terrorism. What is troubling the hon. Member for Southwark, North and

      425
      Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is that Ministers will come to the House seeking an affirmative resolution and have within their knowledge material that they cannot disclose to the House, so there will be a judicial filter. I have some sympathy with that approach, but it is probably not a judicial exercise. I do not think that the Lord Chief Justice or anyone else would want to exercise it.
      The problem goes a little further, however. The power to proscribe can be exercised under clause 3 if the organisation to be proscribed is engaged in terrorist activity, but that test should not be sufficient. For reasons that we have demonstrated in previous debates, many organisations pursue activities that are capable of constituting terrorist activities, but their activities are not such that the House would think it proper, right, appropriate or in the public interest to proscribe them. Thus the real question that the House ought to consider is not a judicial filter, but whether the proscribing power should be extended so that, first, the organisation has to be committing acts of terrorism and, secondly, it is in the public interest to proscribe them. Unless the second test is written in, it will be possible to proscribe simply because an organisation is pursuing activities that fall within the definition of terrorism.
      That takes us back to the miners, demonstrators and hunt saboteurs who pursue activities as defined, but nobody wants them proscribed, however beastly they may be. We should, therefore, build into clause 3 a further test that addresses the public interest.
      Mr. Lidington: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 162 and 163, which stand in my name, and then comment briefly on the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
      Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 would require the Lord Chancellor to consult the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee about appointments to the proscribed organisations appeal commission and about the rules under which that commission should operate.
      I do not want to labour the point, as the subject was alluded to earlier. I tabled amendments Nos. 162 and 163 because it is important to find a way in which to involve the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the Select Committee system more generally, in overseeing the work that the Bill will set in hand.
      We are in the course of establishing a range of commissions, authorities and commissioners, whose duty will be to oversee Ministers' work in respect of various aspects of security and intelligence, and it is time to give serious thought to how best to involve parliamentarians in appropriate scrutiny and oversight of that work.
      I am dubious about amendments Nos. 186 and 187. The decisions that the Bill requires of the Secretary of State in respect of proscription are exactly the sort of responsibility that Secretaries of State are there to carry out. If we ask a judge to look at acutely sensitive security material—perhaps details of informants—we are putting that judge in an invidious position, as it would be normal judicial practice to look at both sides of the argument and, if possible, to allow either party to make representations about the other's evidence.
      Under the amendments, we would be asking the Lord Chief Justice and others to take on what is properly a role for the Executive. It is right that Parliament should hold the Secretary of State to account for such important
      426
      decisions. If Parliament does not have confidence in the persuasiveness of a Secretary of State's argument, it has the right and the responsibility to refuse the order and leave the organisation unproscribed. That is proper parliamentary accountability and the better way to proceed.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: Amendment No. 1 and the other Government amendments are technical amendments concerning proscription, and I will not go into the detail of them.
      On amendment No. 186, I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington): the decision is for the Executive. The issues that have to be taken into account include the nature and scale of the activity, the specific threat posed to the United Kingdom and to UK citizens abroad, the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK, the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism and the importance of deterrence.
      The Home Secretary and the Executive are the right people to take those decisions, with accountability to Parliament in the way that the hon. Member for Aylesbury described. I hope that the House will reject the amendment if it is pressed to a vote, but I urge the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to withdraw it.
      I understand the motive behind amendments Nos. 162 and 163. It is a perfectly reasonable proposition that we should find a better way of binding the parliamentary process into the procedures. As I wrote to Committee members following this discussion in Committee, the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee is defined in section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. It is
      to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of—

      (a) the Security Service;

      (b) the Intelligence Service; and

      (c) GCHQ.

      It seems unlikely that the ISC's remit as currently established would allow for the role and responsibility that the hon. Member for Aylesbury has suggested, although I appreciate his motives and I am happy to consider other proposals that he may have for more effective integration.
      I hope that the House will support the Government amendments and that the others will not be pressed to a vote.
      12 midnight
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the other contributions to this debate. Good and valid points were made by the hon. Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), as well as by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I do not agree with the view of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that there may not be an appropriate forum for other people to have a say in the process. If there is a method that would command greater support in terms of the public interest test, rather than a traditional court proceeding, we could reasonably consider it. On that basis, I shall seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment and I shall talk to my colleagues

      427
      to see whether we can increase citizens' powers and reduce the state's power slightly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 6

      FURTHER APPEAL
      Amendments made: No. 1, in page 3, line 26, leave out "leave" and insert "permission".
      No. 2, in page 3, line 28, leave out "leave" and insert "permission".—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

    Clause 8

      SECTION 7: SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND
      Amendments made: No. 3, in page 4, line 34, leave out from "Scotland" to end of line 8 on page 5 and insert "—

      (a) for every reference to the Court of Appeal or the Crown Court substitute a reference to the High Court of Justiciary,

      (b) in subsection (2)(b), at the end insert "and quash the conviction",

      (c) in subsection (4)—

      (i) in paragraph (a), for "28 days" substitute "two weeks", and
      (ii) in paragraph (b), for "section I of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968" substitute "section 106 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995",

      (d) in subsection (5)—

      (i) for "by a magistrates' court" substitute "in summary proceedings", and

      (ii) in paragraph (b), at the end insert "and quash the conviction",

      (e) in subsection (6), paragraph (c) is omitted,

      (f) in subsection (7)—

      (i) in paragraph (a) for "21 days" substitute "two weeks", and

      (ii) for paragraph (b) substitute—

      "(b) shall be by note of appeal, which shall state the ground of appeal,

      (c) shall not require leave under any provision of Part X of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, and

      (d) shall be in accordance with such procedure as the High Court of Justiciary may, by Act of Adjoumal, determine.".'

      No. 4, in page 5, line 14, after "court,", insert—
      '() the reference in subsection (6) to section I I I of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall be taken as a reference to Article 146 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981,'.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

    Clause 9

      HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
      Amendment made: No. 5, in page 5, line 29, leave out—
      '(but not paragraph 5(1)(a) or (3)(e))'.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

    Clause 29

      FORFEITURE: APPEAL
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 14, line 22, leave out "by a magistrates' court".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10 to 13.
      Mr. Clarke: The purpose of this group of amendments is to ensure that the provision for England, Wales and Northern Ireland set out in amendment No. 9 will also apply to Scotland. I hope that they are uncontroversial and can be agreed by the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 7, in page 14, line 25, after "Court," insert—
      '() where the order is made by the sheriff in Scotland, to the Court of Session,'.
      No. 8, in page 14, line 32, after "court" insert "or the sheriff'.
      No. 9, in page 14, line 42, at end insert—
      '(5A) Subsection (5B) applies where a successful application for a forfeiture order relies (in whole or in part) on the fact that an organisation is proscribed, and—

      (a) a deproscription appeal under section 5 is allowed in respect of the organisation,

      (b) an order is made under section 3(3)(b) in respect of the organisation in accordance with an order of the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission under section 5(4) (and, if the order is made in reliance on section 121(4), a resolution is passed by each House of Parliament under section 121(4)(b)), and

      (c) the forfeited cash was seized under section 25 on or after the date of the refusal to deproscribe against which the appeal under section 5 was brought.

      (5B) Where this subsection applies an appeal under subsection (1) may be brought at any time before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the date on which the order under section 3(3)(b) comes into force.'.
      No. 10, in page 14, line 43, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

    Clause 30

      TREATMENT OF FORFEITED CASH
      Amendments made: No. 11, in page 15, line 4, leave out "or (6)".
      No. 12, in page 15, line 5, leave out "or (6)".—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

    Clause 31
      RULES OF COURT
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 15, line 14, leave out paragraph (c).—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]
    Clause 39

      TERRORIST: INTERPRETATION
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 18, line 16, leave out "57" and insert "62".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 22 to 24 and 30.
      Mr. Clarke: Amendment No. 14 extends the list of offences under the Bill in respect of which a clause 40 arrest may be made. Amendments Nos. 22 and 24 ensure that the police will be able to cross from one part of the United Kingdom to another to exercise the powers under clauses 40 and 42 to arrest or search a person suspected of being a terrorist. Amendment No. 23 gives the police explicit power to seize and retain things that may constitute evidence that a person searched under the clause 42 search powers is a terrorist. Amendment No. 30, in line with section 221 of PACE, provides that things may be retained as long as necessary in all the circumstances.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 40

      ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 18, line 37, after "detained", insert—
      'In accordance with subsection (5) or (6) or'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 16 to 21.
      Amendment No. 164, in schedule 7, page 111, line 37, leave out "a judicial authority" and insert "the Secretary of State".
      Amendment No. 137, in page 111, line 44, leave out "seven" and insert "four".
      Amendment No. 179, in page 111, line 44, leave out "seven" and insert "five".
      Amendment No. 165, in page 112, line 1, leave out subparagraph (4).
      Government amendments Nos. 77 to 81.
      Amendment No. 166, in page 112, line 23, leave out "A judicial authority", and insert "The Secretary of State".
      Amendment No. 167, in page 112, line 39, leave out "judicial authority", and insert "Secretary of State".
      Amendment No. 168, in page 112, line 39, leave out from "application" to end of line 4 on page 113.
      Government amendment No. 82.
      Amendment No. 169, in page 113, line 7, leave out "judicial authority" and insert "Secretary of State".
      Amendment No. 170, in page 113, line 11, leave out "A judicial authority" and insert "The Secretary of State".
      Amendment No. 171, in page 113, line 26, leave out subparagraph (3).
      Government amendment No. 83.
      Amendment No. 172, in page 113, line 31, leave out "a judicial authority", and insert "the Secretary of State".
      430
      Government amendments Nos. 84 to 89.
      Mr. Clarke: The Government amendments are minor and are intended to allow the judicial authority to adjourn proceedings and to define the point at which the application is made.
      Mr. Lidington: Several of the amendments in this group were tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and me. I had a good go at the subject in Committee, so I shall not detain the House overlong. This is an important subject, as both sides of the Committee recognised. The Government propose to substitute for the authority of the Secretary of State the authority of a judicial authority to determine applications by the police for the extension of detention permitted under clause 40 and schedule 7.
      When the Brogan case was originally judged by the European Court of Human Rights, the United Kingdom decided to derogate from the human rights convention in respect of terrorist offences to do with Northern Ireland. The reasons for that decision were important. I understand that the present Government approach the subject from a different perspective and that they have long been committed to the principle of substituting judicial authority for ministerial authority, but I still have concerns that I want to air in the House.
      We have just debated the question of proscriptions and deproscriptions. The Minister and I agreed that it was properly the responsibility of a Minister and not of a judge to examine sensitive security and intelligence and to come to an informed conclusion about whether a recommendation should be made to Parliament for the proscription of a terrorist organisation. An analogy can be drawn between that and the proposals in this group of amendments.
      The amendments cause us to consider what should happen when a senior police officer is in receipt of sensitive security and intelligence information about the activities or plans of a terrorist suspect. Let us assume that that officer decides that it is necessary, for the furtherance of his terrorist investigation, to apply for an extended period of detention for the individual involved. Should scrutiny of that sensitive information be the responsibility of a Minister, or should it be the responsibility of the sort of judicial authority that the Government propose to establish? Strong arguments can be made that such scrutiny should be performed by the Executive, and not by any judicial authority.
      When the previous Government considered this matter, two arguments above all influenced the decision that Ministers took. The first was the general argument that the responsibility was to form a decision on the basis of sensitive information, and that that was not analogous to judicial involvement in public interest immunity hearings or in extensions of detention under PACE.
      Under the PACE procedures, the defendant is told the nature of the evidence on which he has been arrested. He is also told the reasons why his continued detention is necessary. In contrast, the procedural safeguards that the Government propose for extended detention under the counter-terrorism arrangements offer fewer safeguards to suspects, because of the sensitivity of the information in question.
      Secondly, the previous Government were influenced by concern for the position of the Northern Ireland judiciary. That judiciary has few members, and consists of people

      431
      who have often been the subject of terrorist threats and attacks. It also includes people who have the great responsibility of deciding serious criminal cases without benefit of a jury because of fears of witness intimidation by terrorist gangs.
      In those circumstances, the previous Government thought it right that responsibility for extensions of detention should remain with the Secretary of State. I believe that, in the aftermath of the Brogan case, the Northern Ireland judiciary was very reluctant to take on that responsibility.
      I ask the Minister, when he responds, to take account of the arguments that I have adduced. Is he confident that the judiciary of Northern Ireland in particular is ready and willing to take on the extra responsibilities that the Government propose to impose on them?
      Mr. McNamara: Schedule 7 is interesting, dealing, as it does, with the provisions under clause 40. Paragraph 26 deals with the extension of detention for up to seven days. I welcome—because I have campaigned for it in the past—the introduction of the judicial element into the procedure when applications are made for extensions of detention. However, I am not certain about the procedures that are being followed in this case.
      In the past, we were told that the fact that every case went to the Secretary of State acted as a safeguard in preventing an extension of detention. An examination of the statistics, however, suggests that in every case that went before the Secretary of State—or nearly every case—the extension was almost automatically granted. Therefore, the procedure's justification as an additional safeguard for the person being detained was not such a safeguard. That is not surprising, because one arm of the Executive was asking another arm of the Executive to carry out a certain function.
      A person who is detained will now be able to make an application to the resident magistrate or to the county court to deal with his or her case. The main fault with that procedure is that the suspect, or his lawyer, or both, may be exempted from the court proceedings and therefore will not see, hear or know the grounds upon which the decision is being made. While judicial intervention is to be welcomed, deciding such cases will place an onerous duty on the Northern Ireland judiciary, particularly if cases take place in the absence of the person detained or of his or her legal representative. They will need to bear that in mind, and not follow what seemed to be the practice of previous Secretaries of State.
      Under the current system, an application must be made to extend a period of detention from 48 hours up to five days, and then a further application must be made for a further two-day period, up to a maximum of seven days. Under the new procedure, however, it appears that the judicial authority will be able to order an extension for a full five days. If that is the case, the provision may fall short of the desires and wishes of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which seemed to indicate that four days was a sufficient period in which a person could be detained without being brought before a judicial authority for a second occasion.
      I believe that the period in which people can be detained under such provisions should be a maximum of four days. In providing a way in which detention can be
      432
      increased to five days, I believe that the Government may again fall foul of the European court. I shall not divide the House on these matters, but we are continuously finding, as we go through the Bill, provisions that seem contrary to the spirit and precise provisions of the European convention on human rights and of the decisions of the court.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Two points arise. Following the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on the Conservative amendments in the group, may I say that I understand the particular Northern Ireland circumstances of the judiciary that make the argument? However, the House would find it inconsistent if, having asked for judicial oversight of applications in the previous group of amendments, I suddenly supported him in seeking to move it from the judiciary to Ministers.
      Mr. Lidington: We are consistent.
      12.15 am
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. I argue that we should keep the provision. Therefore, on the first issue I support the Government's position.
      However, on the second issue, I am more concerned—as is the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—about the time limits. We went around this circuit once in Committee, as members of that Committee will remember. I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that, unusually, on this occasion the Government are going beyond what was recommended by the independent review. Lord Lloyd's review considered how much extra detention should be allowed if a warrant was obtained. The answer was four days in total. That matter was picked up in page 36 of the Government's consultation paper, paragraph 8.21 of which states:
      While Lord Lloyd acknowledges that there have been occasions on which the police might have found it more difficult to bring charges had they not been able to detain the suspect for longer than 4 days, he suggests that—
      of course, this is a qualification and it is a phrase that comes up regularly—
      once there is a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, it ought to be possible to reduce the maximum period for which a suspect could be detained under the new legislation to a total of 4 days—ie. 2 days on the authority of the police plus 2 days with judicial authorisation before charge or release. His views may well have been influenced by the fact that the practice has been that extensions in international terrorist cases have not exceeded a total of 4 days.
      Three paragraphs of Government justification follow, considering the consultation paper and arguing that the public should be asked to consider seven days. I hope that I am not misrepresenting the Government when I say that they think that, given the growing threat of international terrorism, they need the maximum possible power. This is one of those occasions on which the Government seem to be going further than they need—and further than reconunended—for no good reason other than the prospect that terrorism is growing throughout the world, so they may need more power. That is the wrong precedent to set in a Bill that we are going to lock into our future history.
      If we could not come back to the Bill, we would have to legislate for the worst-case scenario in five, 10 or 20 years. There will be an annual report, but we will not necessarily have an opportunity to reconsider the

      433
      legislation, as we will do later with the motion to approve the continuance of the emergency powers legislation—if we get that far.
      I caution the House, and ask the Minister to justify why we should go beyond the recommendation made by the Government's adviser by nearly doubling the period that he recommended, not on the basis of clear evidence that four days has not been adequate, but on the theoretical basis that seven days would be more advantageous to the authorities. The latter is self-evident.
      We must resist Governments gaining power, in particular where they have not made a case for doing so that is based on past practice. This is one of those cases.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: First, I will deal with the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). We had a broadly similar argument in Committee. The purpose of the amendment is to reduce the time that a person may be kept in detention from seven to four days. It is likely that the amendment is inspired by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which, reasonably, submitted evidence on the subject. It argues that detention for more than four days and six hours, as identified in the Brogan case, might be a breach of the European convention on human rights. The Brogan case centred on the time in detention without judicial sanction. The judgment in that case is not relevant to the time that is permissible with judicial approval.
      I fully recognise that Lord Lloyd recommended four days' detention in total, even with judicial involvement, but he did not recommend such a reduction in the circumstances that prevailed at the time of writing his report. He was satisfied that there were occasions when the police might have found it more difficult to bring charges if detention were limited to four days. The Government continue to believe that there may be occasions when the police need more than four days and we are introducing judicial authorisation, which is a major departure. As I said in Committee, the judicial authority will have to be satisfied as to the police need for further detention; the Bill requires him also to be satisfied that the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously.
      Seven-day detention will remain a rare occurrence, but the provision is needed none the less. I repeat the figures that I quoted in Committee on that matter. The figures for PTA detentions in Northern Ireland from 1 July to 30 September show that four persons were detained in the three to four-day period; two were charged and two were released. In the four to five-day period, two persons were detained; one was charged and the other released. In that quarter, no individuals were detained for more than five days.
      I do not accept that seven-day detention breaches the Brogan judgment, which found that detention for four days and six hours was a breach of the convention. The judgment centred on the lack of judicial involvement in the detention process—not on the precise time. Nor do I accept that the judicial authority will grant five-day detentions as a matter of course. The Bill provides for further extension to be granted; that reflects the current position where extensions are granted incrementally.
      However, I do not favour placing a statutory limit on the time that can be granted per application. That will be a matter for the judicial authority based on the evidence
      434
      before him. The ECHR demands that the authority hear both sides; the Bill delivers that. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing his amendment.
      As for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), I agree with him that the issue is extremely important, and, as he acknowledged, we debated it in Committee. The effect of the amendment would be to remove the judicial authority from the process. We would revert to the current position in which extended detention is a matter for the Secretary of State. On Second Reading, the official Opposition suggested that that was a proper role for the Executive—even though it would require continued derogation from the convention. The point was expanded in Committee where the hon. Gentleman suggested that the role was not a proper one for the judiciary—as he has also done this evening.
      There is a fundamental difference in the approaches taken by the Opposition and by the Government. It is a perfectly reasonable difference of principle of which I make no criticism. However, the amendments miss the opportunity to place decisions about the liberty of the individual in the hands of those who are best placed to make such a judgment—the judiciary. To take that opportunity would meet our ECHR obligations and, happily, from our perspective, would enable the UK's derogation from the convention to be withdrawn.
      Since May 1997, an important aspect of Government policy has been that we should end the UK's derogation from the ECHR. One of the effects of our approach in this matter would be to achieve that.
      I fully acknowledge that there is more than one way to approach an issue. In this case, the official Opposition elect to retain executive authority, while the Government believe that it is right to follow the judicial route. For the reasons I have given, I hope that the Opposition amendments will not be pressed to a vote.
      I commend the Government amendments to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 16, in page 18, line 38, leave out "apply" and insert "make an application".
      No. 17, in page 18, line 38, leave out—
      'Part III of that Schedule'
      and insert—
      'paragraph 26 of Schedule 7'.
      No. 18, in page 18, line 41, leave out "is being made or"
      No. 19, in page 18, line 41, leave out from "under" to second "a" in line 42 and insert—
      'paragraph 26 or 32 of Schedule 7 in respect of.
      No. 20, in page 19, line 1, leave out from "Where" to "in" and insert—
      'an application under paragraph 26 or 32 of Schedule 7 is granted'.
      No. 21, in page 19, line 3, at end insert—
      '() The refusal of an application in respect of a person's detention under paragraph 26 or 32 of Schedule 7 shall not prevent his continued detention in accordance with this section.'.
      No. 22, in page 19, line 3, at end insert—
      '() A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise the power under subsection (1) in any Part of the United Kingdom.'.[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 42

      SEARCH OF PERSONS.
      Amendments made: No. 23, in page 19, line 23, at end insert—
      '() A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.'.
      No. 24, in page 19, line 23, at end insert—
      '() A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise a power under this section in any Part of the United Kingdom.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 44

      EXERCISE OF POWER.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 20, line 18, after "seize", insert "and retain".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 26, 59, 94, 100 to 108, 112 to 114, 117, 118 and 121.
      Mr. Clarke: The amendments provide consistency throughout the Bill regarding the seizure and retention of things. Amendment No. 59 specifies more precisely those whom a pilot of a not-for-reward flight may notify of his intention to arrive or depart at a non-designated airport. The other amendments in the group are technical and consequential, and repeals.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 56

      POSSESSION FOR TERRORIST PURPOSES.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 182, in page 25, leave out lines 4 to 11.
      I hope the House will agree that the amendment is important. This is the only opportunity that we shall have to discuss two matters that were central to previous debates. The first is whether the Bill, as drafted, is compatible with the European convention on human rights. The second is whether it is right that there should be powers to create what is sometimes described as the reverse burden of proof—whereby people have to prove that something is not the case, rather than the prosecution having to prove that it is the case.
      The amendment applies to clause 56, which creates the offence of possession for terrorist purposes. The clause says:
      A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
      If those circumstances give rise to a reasonable suspicion, it is a defence for the person charged with the offence to prove that his possession was not for a purpose connected with that act. He has a statutory defence if he can show that the inference is wrong.
      436
      The following subsection is particularly dangerous, and the amendment will remove it if the House agrees with us. It says:
      In proceedings for an offence under this section, if it is proved that an article … was on any premises at the same time as the accused, or … was on premises of which the accused was the occupier or which he habitually used other than as a member of the public, the court may assume that the accused possessed the article, unless he proves that he did not know of its presence on the premises or that he had no control over it.
      I hope that by simply reading the clause, without any argument, I begin to make the case that this is, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), a "guilty until you prove yourself innocent" clause rather than an "innocent until you prove yourself guilty" clause. There are significant reasons from case law for believing that the provision falls foul of the convention. I have been given clear legal advice that the provision breaches the convention.
      Mr. Bermingham: It is a total breach of the convention.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman, who is a practising member of the Bar, confirms that. He may want to contribute to the debate.
      I shall not reiterate all the points made in Committee, but I refer colleagues to the debate on 1 February in the seventh sitting which begins in column 244 of Hansard. The arguments about clauses 55 and 56 were subject to the same criticism, and this is only one of many examples in the Bill of a reverse provision where one has to prove that one did not know about something. Self-evidently, that is an extremely difficult thing to do.
      I draw the attention of the House to the breadth of the provision. First, any article can render one guilty; it does not have to be a firearm, ammunition, Semtex or a knife. The Bill says:
      A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion.
      The second issue concerns possession. I have not yet said that being found guilty of the offence means that one would be liable to 10 years' imprisonment, so we are talking not about a minor criminal offence, but abut a serious one punishable by a significant period of imprisonment. One can be assumed to be guilty of possession simply because the article is found on the premises at the same time as one is there.
      12.30 am
      That need not be one's own house, caravan, land or car; it can be the house of a person with whom one is staying, of a person whom one is visiting, of a member of one's family, or of a work colleague; it can be the farm house if one is a farm worker, or a barn on the farm if one is the farm owner. The fact of an article being found on any and all of those premises is sufficient to reverse the burden of proof.
      The clause does not apply to public buildings, such as pubs or shops, but it does apply to any premises of which one is an occupier, or which one habitually uses, or in which one was present at the same time as the article in question. That means that one would be guilty even if the article was on those premises when one was not there, because one was the occupier of those premises.

      437
      The legislation does not apply solely to Northern Ireland; these events could occur in London, Belfast, Birmingham or Glasgow. I am the occupier of my house, so if an article now in my house were to be found there, I could be presumed to be guilty of an offence. It will be apparent to the House that we are entering a realm of culpability extending beyond any previous provisions applicable to this country.
      The third objection is the presumption of guilt and the reversal of proof. The House understands that criticism perfectly well, and the reasons for it. I am not being mischievous or partisan, I just want to put on record the fact that people who are now members of the Government argued against such provisions only a few years ago, when they were in opposition. The Attorney-General—this country's senior Law Officer—has argued against such provisions and made the case. In similar cases, involving exactly such provisions, we as a country have been found to be in breach of the convention.
      There is case law, which I shall not detail as people can easily find the relevant references. One does not even have to prove a prima facie case to pass the reasonable suspicion test; extremely thin evidence may be considered sufficient to establish a subjective reasonable suspicion. A case from the highest legal authority, the Privy Council, confirms that, as do several others.
      The fourth argument rests on the fact that the Bill is not applicable solely to Northern Ireland. It could apply to international organisations based abroad and to premises abroad that one occupies, such as a holiday villa or flat, or a rental property. There are all sorts of ramifications extending beyond this country.
      If the Government want to persuade us that such legislation is required, the burden of proving that rests with them. That is putting it gently. If Ministers want us to agree to the provision, which is repeated throughout the Bill, they must persuade us that it is both justified and a good thing.
      It is true that, in this matter, on the balance of judgment, Lord Lloyd was on the Government's side. The argument rests on how far we want anti-terrorism legislation to go. It is also true that there have only ever been two prosecutions in respect of legislation such as this. Even so, it strikes me that the more important issue is that of the clear legal advice, based on case law, that I have received. The question is whether we want to fly so flagrantly in the face of such strong authority.
      The Minister has said, and I believe him, that the legal advice that he has received is that the provision is compatible with the convention. I tried to be as open as I could and asked to see it. Obviously, lawyers may disagree and there may well be two legal opinions, but at least let us examine the arguments which suggest that the provision is compatible with the European convention. That advice has not been forthcoming. I understand that even if we had the most wonderful freedom of information legislation, such advice to the Government would probably not be required to be produced.
      Unless the Government can produce such independent authority against the backdrop of the case law, they are not passing the test of showing the case to the House. I shall not detain the House further. We shall press the amendment to a Division.
      The Home Secretary sold the Bill to us on the basis that it would be UK-wide legislation. It will not be for part of the United Kingdom, but for all of it. It will not
      438
      be for people only in the United Kingdom, but for people beyond it. It will not be for a limited period, but indefinitely.
      We cannot legislate in a way that is compatible with our legal obligations and the rights of our citizens if we put such legislation on the statute book. I hope that people will realise that the good British legal tradition that a person is innocent until proven guilty should remain, unless the Government can advance an overwhelming argument for it to be changed. They have not made that case.
      Mr. Corbyn: I shall be brief, as the hour is late. I endorse what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said in support of his amendment.
      The basic principle of all law must be that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The clause appears to go in the opposite direction. It would indict someone who has been regularly on the premises where it is believed that some material that could be used for terrorist activities is held. It would also require a person to prove his lack of knowledge—in other words, to prove his innocence, rather than the prosecution proving a case against that person.
      On a number of occasions, people have been arrested under the existing PTA and subsequently convicted and imprisoned, or arrested under other legislation, and have subsequently proved to be innocent. I am thinking of the case of Danny MacNamee, who spent many years in prison and was finally acquitted. He was charged with possession. It was later proved that he could not have done what he was supposed to have done with the material that he had.
      Draconian legislation is proposed. I endorse the comment of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the Bill is different from other Bills. It is a permanent, not a temporary provision. Someone could be convicted on the basis that, because of regular visits to a place, it could be claimed that he had knowledge of what was going on there. In those circumstances, it would be difficult for the person to prove otherwise.
      I fear that, if the Bill is enacted in its present form, we will return to the miscarriages of justice of yesteryear, which we hoped to have left behind us, with the changes in attitude and legislation following the release of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and others. We may want to deal with the problems of people who place bombs that kill innocent people, but this is not the way to do it. We are being urged to convict the innocent along with the guilty. That prejudices the entire judicial process.
      I ask the Minister to explain the justification for stating in the Bill that one must prove a lack of knowledge of something. It is virtually impossible to do that. The onus should be on the prosecution, rather than on the defence, to prove that. The provision goes against the principle that the burden of proof should lie with the prosecution. It states that the burden of proof must lie with the defence. That cannot be right. It is contrary to the basic principles of our law.
      Mr. McNamara: I shall not detain the House long. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) have made most of the points. I shall make two observations.

      439
      When the Bill was first published, it contained the fiat from the Home Secretary that nothing in it was contrary to the human rights convention. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey read out the clause, so I do not intend to do that. However, I shall repeat article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Article 6.2 states:
      Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the law.
      It is incumbent on the Government not merely to claim that, on best advice, their actions are compatible with the convention, but to produce evidence of that. That reverses the burden of proof, and puts the onus on the Government to prove their case and their innocence.
      Mr. Lidington: As I understand the report of Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the comparable provision in the emergency provisions Act led to no fewer than 24 convictions since the power was first introduced in 1991. We should therefore pause before we accept the dilution of the law that the amendment would allow.
      According to my interpretation of clause 56, the prosecution has to prove that an article found during an investigation is incriminating of likely terrorist activity. That is an unqualified burden on the prosecution when the case comes to court. The reversal of the burden of proof applies only when the defendant wants to argue that, although the article was present and was found in circumstances that created a reasonable suspicion that it was connected with terrorist activity, he did not possess it and was not aware of its presence. That proposal is not as unreasonable as the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) suggest.
      I agree with Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who argued that if,
      during a search of premises occupied by a suspected terrorist, the police … find materials such as timers or chemicals in highly incriminating circumstances without also finding explosives or other prohibited materials—
      possession of which would count as an offence—the relevant person should
      be required to account to the court for his possession of the articles.
      That is reasonable. For that reason, I do not support the amendment.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: The debate was rehearsed in Committee in columns 252–53. The general question of whether the clause constituted a reversal of the burden of proof has also been considered at length.
      First, let me refer to the report of Lord Lloyd of Berwick. The possession offence for which clause 56 provides is useful and effective. Lord Lloyd sets it out clearly. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) provided some details. The provision reflects the prevention of terrorism Act. We are satisfied on the basis of the Lords ruling in Kebilene that the provision is not incompatible with the European convention on human rights.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that the comments of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) were sheer rubbish? If one finds timers, explosives and so on, they are per se objects of terrorism. We are arguing about whether the reverse burden is applicable. It is not applicable in view of article 6 of the European convention on human rights.
      Mr. Clarke: I do not agree with the analysis of my hon. Friend. For the purpose of clarity, I shall go through clause 56. Subsection (1) states:
      A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
      That condition, which is not trivial, must be fulfilled.
      Subsection (2) states:
      It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
      There is therefore a statutory defence. It is not the only defence, but, statutorily, it is a defence to demonstrate that possession was not for a purpose connected with terrorism. Again, that approach runs through the Bill in a number of different aspects. It stands up absolutely and is a statutory defence that can protect innocent people.
      12.45 am
      Subsection (3) is specifically addressed by the amendment. Again, the point is clear: the court may assume that the accused possessed the article unless he proves that he did not know of its presence on the premises or that he had no control over it.
      A series of hurdles would have to be overcome by the prosecution to get to an offence in this particular area. We are dealing with serious issues, as set out in Lord Lloyd's report. I hope that the House agrees that the amendment should be defeated if put to the vote, but I also hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will withdraw it, as he did in Committee.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: We went round the course once in Committee and then considered the components of the clause in the clause stand part debate. I expressly reserved our position at that stage, as the Minister fairly recognises, and sought to amend the clause—which I thought would be of practical value—in a significant and material way that we think would correct the balance. This is a symbolic effort because there are similar clauses, but rather than test it ad nauseam through the evening, we think it right to put our amendment to the vote. I shall not withdraw it because even if, with draconian powers, some success would be achieved, it is at least unwise to provide a balance that is so weighted and so unusual—in more than one way, there is a double balance in favour of the prosecution—when there is clear controversy and specific advice that the measure falls foul of the European convention.

      441
      In the very year in which we are introducing the convention into British law—the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to it—putting the Bill on the statute book permanently does not send the right signals either to Northern Ireland, where people are seeking to re-establish normal criminal justice, or to the rest of the country, where we are seeking to uphold our traditions well. We do not want the Bill to be permanent and I regret greatly the inclusion of such provisions. Of course the prosecution will be more likely to succeed if the burden of proof is reversed. That is self-evident. If there were no defence rights, there would be more convictions. That, too, is self-evident. The fewer rights there are, the more likely that the defence will have difficulties.
      We cannot afford to risk the miscarriages of justice that such provisions will enable and it is important that the House, with as much support as possible, either defeats the Government and amends the clause or at least signals its clear view that the other place should reconsider the matter.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 239.

      Division No. 113]

      [12.48 am

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Baker, Norman

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Ballard, Jackie

      McDonnell, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Breed, Colin

      McNamara, Kevin

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Moore, Michael

      Burnett, John

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Burstow, Paul

      Rendel, David

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Chidgey, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Cotter, Brian

      Tyler, Paul

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Webb, Steve

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Willis, Phil

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hancock, Mike

      Mr. Tom Brake and

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Sir Robert Smith.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Browne, Desmond

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Burgon, Colin

      Allen, Graham

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cann, Jamie

      Austin, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Banks, Tony

      Casale, Roger

      Barnes, Harry

      Cawsey, Ian

      Beard, Nigel

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clapham, Michael

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Benton, Joe

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Berry, Roger

      Clelland, David

      Blackman, Liz

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clwyd, Ann

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Coaker, Vernon

      Borrow, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cohen, Harry

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Collins, Tim

      442

      Colman, Tony

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Connarty, Michael

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Corston, Jean

      Laxton, Bob

      Cousins, Jim

      Lepper, David

      Cox, Tom

      Levitt, Tom

      Cranston, Ross

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Crausby, David

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Lidington, David

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Linton, Martin

      Cummings, John

      Lock, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'tiy S)

      Love, Andrew

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Luff, Peter

      Darvill, Keith

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      McCabe, Steve

      Dawson, Hilton

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Day, Stephen

      McFall, John

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Dowd, Jim

      McIsaac, Shona

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Ennis, Jeff

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Fisher, Mark

      McWalter, Tony

      Flint, Caroline

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Flynn, Paul

      Mallaber, Judy

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Gapes, Mike

      Maxton, John

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Gerrard, Neil

      Merron, Gillian

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Miller, Andrew

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Moffatt, Laura

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Godsiff, Roger

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Goggins, Paul

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Morley, Elliot

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Mountford, Kali

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Grogan, John

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Hanson, David

      Olner, Bill

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      O'Neill, Martin

      Healey, John

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Pearson, Ian

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Pendry, Tom

      Heppell, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hesford, Stephen

      Pike, Peter L

      Hinchliffe, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Hope, Phil

      Pollard, Kerry

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Pope, Greg

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Pound, Stephen

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hurst, Alan

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Hutton, John

      Purchase, Ken

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Illsley, Eric

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Rammell, Bill

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Rapson, Syd

      Jamieson, David

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Rooney, Terry

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Ruane, Chris

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Salter, Martin

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Sawford, Phil

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Kemp, Fraser

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Singh, Marsha

      Kidney, David

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      443

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Stringer, Graham

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Soley, Clive

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Timms, Stephen

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Tipping, Paddy

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Todd, Mark

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Touhig, Don

      Trickett, Jon

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      444

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie Doncaster C)

      Tynan, Bill

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Wise, Audrey

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wood, Mike

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Woolas, Phil

      Watts, David

      White, Brian

      Worthington, Tony

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

      Winnick, David

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 81
      ARREST AND SEIZURE: CONSTABLES
      Amendment made: No. 26, in page 39, line 28, after "seize", insert "and retain".—[Mr. Jamieson.]
    Clause 100

      CODES OF PRACTICE: SUPPLEMENTARY
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 48, line 9, leave out "(with appropriate modification s)".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 28, 91 to 93, 110, 111 and 120.
      Mr. Clarke: Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 91 to 93 tidy up the position on how to deal with modifying codes of practice. Amendments Nos. 110, 111 and 120 remove the bar in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 on applying the PACE codes to the detention of terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Could we have some order in the House?
      Amendment agreed to.
      1 am
      Amendment made: No. 28, in page 48, line 10, leave out—
      'the first issue of a'
      and insert "an original".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 111

      EXPIRY AND REVIVAL
      Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 52, line 15, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
      '(5) The following provisions shall be treated for the purposes of this section as forming part of this Part of this Act—

      (a) paragraphs 35 and 36 of Schedule 4, and

      (b) paragraphs I8A to 18C of Schedule 5.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31 to 34, 41, 42 and 58.
      Mr. Ingram: The amendments are intended to carry forward for Northern Ireland the provisions that appear in paragraph 8 of schedule 7 to the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I commend them to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 113

      POLICE POWERS
      Amendment made: No. 30, in page 53, line 16, at end insert—
      '() Where anything is seized by a constable under a power conferred by virtue of this Act, it may (unless the contrary intention appears) be retained for so long as is necessary in all the circumstances.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 118

      EVIDENCE
      Amendments made: No. 31, in page 54, line 17, after "given", insert "or order made".
      No. 32, in page 54, line 21, after "given", insert "or made".
      No. 33, in page 54, line 24, after "given", insert "or order made".
      No. 34, in page 54, line 27, at end insert—
      '() In subsections (I) and (2) a reference to an order does not include a reference to an order made by statutory instrument.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 121

      ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
      Amendment proposed: No. 35, in page 56, line 20, leave out "and".—[Mr. Ingram.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 36.
      Amendment No. 148, in page 56, leave out line 25.
      Amendment No. 150, in page 6, leave out line 27
      Amendment No. 154, in page 56, leave out line 28.
      Amendment No. 152, in page 56, leave out line 29.
      Amendment No. 156, in page 56, line 30, leave out "or (3)".
      Amendment No. 158, in page 56, leave out line 31.
      Amendment No. 160, in page 56, leave out line 36.
      Amendment No. 149, in page 56, line 40, at end insert "() section 4(3)".
      Amendment No. 151, in page 56, line 42, at end insert "() section 71".
      Amendment No. 155, in page 56, line 42, at end insert "() section 78(5)".
      Amendment No. 153, in page 56, line 42, at end insert "() section 79(9)".
      Amendment No. 157, in page 56, line 43, at end insert "() section 96(3)".
      Amendment No. 159, in page 56, line 43, at end insert "() section 99(1)(b)".
      Amendment No. 161, in page 57, line 2, at end insert—
      '() paragraph 16 of Schedule 7'.
      Mr. Lidington: The non-Government amendments relate to whether order-making powers given to the Secretary of State should be handled in Parliament by the negative resolution procedure, as the Government propose, or whether they should more properly be

      447
      subjected to parliamentary scrutiny and approval under the affirmative resolution procedure before they come into force.
      I do not wish to detain the House for long, but it is important to describe the order-making powers in respect of which I suggest that we change the proposed procedure. Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 refer to clause 4(3), which deals with procedure for applications for de-proscription. The Bill states that regulations will specify the minimum time set for determination by the Secretary of State, and therefore the time that he would have to consider evidence in support of, or against, an application. Regulations will also define the grounds on which an application could be made to the Secretary of State.
      I cannot see why such regulations should have to be made urgently or at short notice. They would presumably apply generically to any application for de-proscription. It seems logical to bring them before Parliament for proper scrutiny and approval before they come into force.
      Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 deal with clause 71. The regulations in clause 71 are to set time limits for preliminary proceedings on scheduled offences. Those regulations would specify matters such as the maximum time allowed for the prosecution, the maximum period during which a suspect might be held in custody, bail provisions for a suspect, and provisions for the handling of non-scheduled offences that would appear on the charge sheet with a scheduled offence in a particular case.
      Those items seem to raise quite significant issues on the handling of a prosecution case and the liberty of an individual suspect. Again, I should have thought that the type of regulation governing those arrangements would more properly be dealt with using the affirmative resolution procedure.
      Amendments Nos. 154, 155, 152 and 153 refer to different aspects of remission for custodial sentences. Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 deal with clause 78(5). In clause 78, remission under prison rules for Northern Ireland for scheduled offences is set at a maximum of one third of the term for a sentence of five years or more. In clause 78(5), the Secretary of State is given the power by order to substitute a different length of sentence for the five years, and a different period of remission from the one third that is mentioned in clause 78(1).
      In clause 79(9), there is comparable provision for young offenders, and that issue is addressed in amendments Nos. 152 and 153. Those regulations deal with a slightly different matter—the circumstances in which a court should sentence a young offender who has been released on remission, but who then commits a scheduled offence during that remission. Specifically, they deal with the circumstances in which the court should sentence the young offender to serve the unexpired part of his original sentence, as well as the new custodial sentence that the court would have imposed on him for the scheduled offence committed while he was free on remission.
      Each of those categories of regulation deal with some very important issues, such as the Government's power to vary remission arrangements for people who have been convicted of extremely serious violent and public order offences. I should have thought—especially given the degree of public concern in Northern Ireland and on this
      448
      side of the water about the Government's handling of prisoner releases in recent months—that amendments Nos. 154, 155, 152 and 153 dealt with subjects that really should merit full parliamentary scrutiny and debate, and a parliamentary decision before the Secretary of State is allowed to vary the remission arrangements as the relevant provisions currently suggest.
      Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 refer to clause 96(3), which allows the Secretary of State by order to make provision, including by modifying or supplementing schedule 6, about entering or leaving Northern Ireland by land. Although this group is not as important as the previous group, on remission arrangements, I should be interested to know how the Government envisage that power being used. Why is that rule-making power in the Bill?
      Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 deal with clause 99(1)(b), on an order-making power for the Secretary of State to require a silent video recording of interviews, in accordance with the Government's code of practice. Again, I am really seeking in the Minister's reply—or in writing, if he cannot reply today—some explanation of how the Government intend that power to be used. In what circumstances do they intend that those regulations might be applied?
      Amendments Nos.160 and 161 relate to paragraph 16 to schedule 7, which covers the power of the Secretary of State to specify circumstances and set conditions in which a detainee should or should not be permitted to consult a solicitor or whether a solicitor can be present at a suspect's interview. In view of the concerns that have been expressed by Liberal Democrat and Labour Members this evening about the civil rights of terrorist suspects, I should have thought that there would be considerable support in the House for requiring regulations under schedule 7(16) to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in order to ensure fuller and more effective parliamentary scrutiny.
      Although the amendments relate to the detail of the Bill, we are debating some important subjects—in particular the remission arrangements—and powers that Ministers should not be permitted to exercise without adequate parliamentary scrutiny. The amendments provide for that parliamentary scrutiny.
      Mr. Ingram: As the hon. Gentleman said, the Opposition amendments seek to change the parliamentary procedure from the negative to the affirmative in respect of certain, but not all, delegated powers. I shall make three general points before dealing with the hon. Gentleman's point about remission.
      First, the delegated powers in part VII, on which many of the amendments are focused, are subject to the same procedure that would apply to the current provision under the EPA. That is not to say that the parliamentary procedure for those provisions must remain the same under the Bill, but it is surely the right starting point. In respect of the new powers that the Opposition seek to amend, we had to take a view, and we think that we have got it right.
      Secondly, the negative resolution procedure is a significant procedure in its own right. Hon. Members have the opportunity to scrutinise carefully and pray against orders and regulations that are subject to the negative resolution procedure. Clearly if there were concerns about

      449
      what was happening, the hon. Gentleman would have the opportunity to raise specific points, including those that he made tonight about remission arrangements—and I take on board his points about remission.
      That brings me to my third point. It is my judgment that the delegated powers in the Bill are subject to the appropriate scrutiny. Hon Members will no doubt be aware that before the Bill reaches the other place, the delegated powers will be subject to detailed scrutiny, and should it be felt that any of the procedures are inappropriate, we shall of course have regard to that.
      We shall take account of the points that have been made this evening. If I have omitted to deal with any of the detaiis, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman setting out the precise way in which the powers will operate and hopefully set his mind at rest.
      If all the issues were dealt with under the affirmative procedure, we should have to deal with a wide range of orders. We consider an enormous amount of Northern Ireland business on important issues. The amendments seek to extend that in an unlimited way. I am not sure whether my hon. Friends—or indeed Opposition Members—would welcome that.
      Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that there is scope—but not tonight—for a full debate about statutory instruments and parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation. There is a serious problem about the amount and the importance of legislation that is passed via statutory instruments. The examples in the amendments illustrate that argument.
      The Minister's argument about the precedent set by the Prevention of Terrorism Acts is not conclusive. It is a reasonable point for him to make, but it is equally reasonable for Parliament to review from time to time how it scrutinises legislation, and we suggested an appropriate vehicle this evening.
      1.15 am
      I am grateful for the assurance that the matters will be considered further, especially in the light of comments that may be made in another place, so I will not press our amendments to a vote.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 36, in page 56, line 21, at end insert—
      ', and
      () may make different provision for different purposes.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 56, line 35, after "9", insert "(1)(b)".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 40 and 65.
      Amendment No. 174, in schedule 7, page 106, line 41, after "audio" insert "and video".
      Amendment No. 175, in page 106, line 43, leave out "constable" and insert "police officer".
      Amendment No. 176, in page 106, line 44, leave out "constable" and insert "police officer".
      Amendment No. 177, in page 106, line 47, after "audio" insert "and video".
      Government amendments Nos. 66 and 90.
      Amendment No. 180, in schedule 13, page 130, line 15, after "audio" insert "and video".
      Mr. Clarke: The amendments add an enabling power subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so that the Secretary of State may require the video recording of interviews with terrorist suspects at police stations, in accordance with the code of practice.
      This is an example of the Government's broadchurch, inclusive approach in practice. The amendments take account of proposals made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in Committee. I agreed to consider his suggestions, and the amendments are the result. He described his irritation with lawyers when he was a Home Office Minister, and this was an example of our all working together against the lawyers' party.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sorry to rise to the bait, but I am going to make it even worse by telling the Minister that I agree with him, so he cannot even claim that this is the non-lawyers against the lawyers.
      It was always my view that we should try generally, and not only in police stations dealing with suspected terrorists, to have both audio and video recording. When I went to Northern Ireland recently, I asked, as I have in police stations elsewhere, whether people thought that that would save time and work well, and the general view, not only in RUC headquarters in Belfast but at Bessbrook and other police stations, was that it would make life easier and make for less controversy and dispute.
      The initiative is welcome. Would that more initiatives came from the more liberal wing of people in the Committee and the House, but we cannot have everything—or at least not every night.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 57, line 1, at end insert—
      '() paragraph 1(2)(b) of Schedule 1;'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 43 to 47.
      Amendment No. 147, in schedule 1, page 60, leave out lines 36 to 38.
      Mr. Ingram: The amendments were tabled in response to the helpful debate in Committee and to the points made by the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I have looked again at the arrangements relating to the transitional provisions and decided to provide reassurance in the Bill that, if for any reason the bringing into force of the legislation is delayed, the transitional provisions will remain subject to annual renewal by affirmative resolution, as is the traditional way of dealing with the matter. I commend the Government amendments to the House.
      Mr. Lidington: I welcome the Government amendments, which follow a constructive discussion in

      451
      Committee. The ground covered by amendment No. 147 was addressed in Committee, so I shall be brief. One of a small number of deletions from the emergency provisions legislation that the Government now propose involves the powers granted under the EPA to extend searches for munitions. The Government propose that only one extension should be allowed in respect of any particular search operation.
      In Committee, the Minister said specifically that the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland was content with the two other deletions from the EPA to which I had drawn the Committee's attention, which were the provisions concerning the wearing of hoods and the arrangements for the Secretary of State to regulate the siting of explosives factories. I inferred from the way in which the Minister talked of the police being content with those changes that perhaps they were less happy with the imposition of restrictions on extensions to searches for munitions. I wish to press the Minister to say briefly whether the Government are introducing that restriction simply to meet human rights obligations, or whether they believe that the power is now superfluous to legitimate police investigatory requirements.
      Mr. Ingram: We had a good and thorough debate on the matter in Committee, and it was obvious that, before a decision is taken to remove a power from the RUC, full consultation must take place to ensure that the Chief Constable and his force are happy and satisfied with that course of action. We keep the legislation under constant review and, if elements of it become effectively redundant—if they have not been used, are no longer effective or, indeed, do not comply with the provisions of the European convention on human rights—we must take that into account. That is the approach that we have taken to the specific issues in the amendments. The Chief Constable was consulted and we would not have moved without his approval. The amendments will tidy up the legislation and I hope that, as in Committee, the hon. Gentleman will not press them to a Division.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government amendments are useful and we are grateful that the Minister accepted the constitutional point. It means that the Bill is now much clearer and there can be no doubt about the carry-over provisions.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 39, in page 57, line 1, at end insert—
      '() paragraph 6(2) or 7(3) of Schedule [Financial information];'.
      No. 40, in page 57, line 2, at end insert—
      '() paragraph 9(1A) of Schedule 7;
      () paragraph 9A(4) of Schedule 7;'.
      No. 41, in page 57, line 25, leave out "or".
      No. 42, in page 57, line 26, at end insert—
      '() by virtue of paragraph 35 of Schedule 4, or
      () under or by virtue of any of paragraphs 18A to 18C of Schedule 5.'—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    New Schedule 1

      FINANCIAL INFORMATION—ORDERS
      1.—(1) Where an order has been made under this paragraph in relation to a terrorist investigation, a constable named in the order may require a financial institution to provide customer information for the purposes of the investigation.
      (2) The information shall be provided—

      (a) in such manner and within such time as the constable may specify, and

      (b) notwithstanding any restriction on the disclosure of information imposed by statute or otherwise.

      (3) An institution which fails to comply with a requirement under this paragraph shall be guilty of an offence.
      (4) It is a defence for an institution charged with an offence under sub-paragraph (3) to prove—

      (a) that the information required was not in the institution's possession, or

      (b) that it was not reasonably practicable for the institution to comply with the requirement.

      (5) An institution guilty of an offence under this sub-paragraph (3) shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

      Procedure
      2. An order under paragraph 1 may be made only on the application of—

      (a) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent, or

      (b) in Scotland, the procurator fiscal.

      3. An order under paragraph I may be made only by—

      (a) in England and Wales, a Circuit judge,

      (b) in Scotland, the sheriff, or

      (c) in Northern Ireland, a county court judge.

      4.—(1) Crown Court rules may make provision about the procedure for an application under paragraph 1.
      (2) The High Court of Justiciary may, by Act of Adjournal, make provision about the procedure for an application under paragraph I.

      Criteria for making order
      5. An order under paragraph I may be made only if the person making it is satisfied that—

      (a) the order is sought for the purposes of a terrorist investigation,

      (b) the tracing of terrorist property is desirable for the purposes of the investigation, and

      (c) the order will enhance the effectiveness of the investigation.

      Financial institution
      6.—(1) In this Schedule "financial institution" means—

      (a) a person who carries on a business of taking deposits for which he is authorised under the Banking Act 1987,

      (b) a building society (within the meaning of the Building Societies Act 1986),

      (c) a credit union (within the meaning of the Credit Unions Act 1979 or the Credit Unions (Northern Ireland) Order 1985),

      (d) a person carrying on investment business within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986,

      (e) the National Savings Bank,

      (f) a person who carries out an activity for the purposes of raising money authorised to be raised under the National Loans Act 1968 under the auspices of the Director of National Savings,

      453

      (g) a European institution person carrying on a home regulated activity (within the meaning of the Second Council Directive on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions),

      (h) a person carrying out an activity specified in any of points 1 to 12 and 14 of the Annex to that Directive, and

      (i) a person who carries on an insurance business in accordance with an authorisation pursuant to Article 6 or 27 of the First Council Directive on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of direct life assurance.

      (2) The Secretary of State may by order provide for a class of person—

      (a) to be a financial institution for the purposes of this Schedule, or

      (b) to cease to be a financial institution for the purposes of this Schedule.

      (3) An institution which ceases to be a financial institution for the purposes of this Schedule (whether by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(b) or otherwise) shall continue to be treated as a financial institution for the purposes of any requirement under paragraph 1 to provide customer information which relates to a time when the institution was a financial institution.

      Customer information
      7.—(1) In this Schedule "customer information" means (subject to sub-paragraph (3))—

      (a) information whether a business relationship exists or existed between a financial institution and a particular person ("a customer"),

      (b) a customer's account number,

      (c) a customer's full name,

      (d) a customer's date of birth,

      (e) a customer's address or former address,

      (f) the date on which a business relationship between a financial institution and a customer begins or ends,

      (g) any evidence of a customer's identity obtained by a financial institution in pursuance of or for the purposes of any legislation relating to money laundering, and

      (h) the identity of a person sharing an account with a customer.

      (2) For the purposes of this Schedule there is a business relationship between a financial institution and a person if (and only if)—

      (a) there is an arrangement between them designed to facilitate the carrying out of frequent or regular transactions between them, and

      (b) the total amount of payments to be made in the course of the arrangement is neither known nor capable of being ascertained when the arrangement is made.

      (3) The Secretary of State may by order provide for a class of information

      (a) to be customer information for the purposes of this Schedule, or

      (b) to cease to be customer information for the purposes of this Schedule.

      Offence by body corporate, &c.
      8.—(1) This paragraph applies where an offence under paragraph 1(3) is committed by an institution and it is proved that the offence—

      (a) was committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of the institution, or

      (b) was attributable to neglect on the part of an officer of the institution.

      (2) The officer, as well as the institution, shall be guilty of the offence.
      (3) Where an individual is convicted of an offence under paragraph 1(3) by virtue of this paragraph, he shall be liable on summary conviction to—

      (a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months,

      (b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or

      (c) both.

      (4) In the case of an institution which is a body corporate, in this paragraph "officer" includes—

      (a) a director, manager or secretary,

      (b) a person purporting to act as a director, manager or secretary, and

      (c) if the affairs of the body are managed by its members, a member.

      (5) In the case of an institution which is a partnership, in this paragraph "officer" means a partner.
      (6) In the case of an institution which is an unincorporated association (other than a partnership), in this paragraph "officer" means a person concerned in the management or control of the association.

      Self—incrimination
      9.—(1) Customer information provided by a financial institution under this Schedule shall not be admissible in evidence in criminal proceedings against the institution or any of its officers or employees.
      (2) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not apply in relation to proceedings for an offence under paragraph 1(3) (including proceedings brought by virtue of paragraph 8)).'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Schedule 1

      NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT 1996
      Amendments made: No. 43, in page 60, leave out lines 8 to 17 and insert—
      '(2) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph and paragraph 2—

      (a) the provisions to which this paragraph applies shall continue in force for the period of 12 months starting with the day on which this Act is passed, and

      (b) the Secretary of State may by order provide for all or any of those provisions to continue in force for the period of 12 months immediately following the period mentioned
      in paragraph (a).

      (3) Sub-paragraph (2) shall have effect notwithstanding—

      (a) the expiry of a period specified in an order under section 62(3)(a) or (c) of the 1996 Act (temporary extension) where the order was made before the passing of this Act, and

      (b) section 62(10) of the 1996 Act (automatic repeal on 24th August 2000).

      (4) The Secretary of State may by order provide for any of the provisions to which this paragraph applies—

      (a) to cease to have effect on a specified day;

      (b) to cease to be one of the temporary provisions for the purposes of section 62 of the 1996 Act on a specified day;

      and different days may be specified for different purposes.'.
      No. 44, in page 60, line 20, leave out 'paragraph 1(2)(a)' and insert—
      'virtue of paragraph 1(2)(a) or (b)'.
      No. 45, in page 60, line 20, leave out—
      'by virtue of paragraph 1(2)(b)'

      455
      and insert—
      'on the expiry of a period mentioned in paragraph 1(2) or ceases to be a temporary provision by virtue of paragraph 1(4)(b)'.
      No. 46, in page 60, line 23, at end insert—
      'the following provisions of the 1996 Act—
      () section 26(1)(b) (power of entry on authority of Secretary of State),'.
      No. 47, in page 60, line 24, leave out 'of the 1996 Act'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Schedule 3

      THE PROSCRIBED ORGANISATIONS APPEAL COMMISSION
      Amendments made: No. 48, in page 62, line 42, at end insert—
      (In making the rules the Lord Chancellor shall, in particular, have regard to the need to secure—

      (a) that decisions which are the subject of appeals are properly reviewed, and

      (b) that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest.'.

      No. 49, in page 62, line 47, at end insert—
      'and from any person representing it or him'.
      No. 50, in page 63, line 1, leave out 'legal'.
      No. 51, in page 63, line 7, leave out 'leave' and insert 'permission'.
      No. 52, in page 63, line 22, at end insert—
      () In paragraphs 5 and 8 of this Schedule a reference to an organisation includes a reference to a person designated under this paragraph.'.
      No. 53, in page 63, line 40, at end insert—
      () In paragraphs 5 and 8 of this Schedule a reference to a representative does not include a reference to a person appointed under this paragraph.'.
      No. 54, in page 63, leave out lines 47 and 48.
      No. 55, in page 63, line 49, at end insert—
      'or
      () any person representing the organisation concerned or the applicant.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Schedule 4

      FORFEITURE ORDERS
      Amendments made: No. 56, in page 73, line 30, at end insert—
      '.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

      (a) a forfeiture order or a restraint order is made in or in relation to proceedings for an offence under any of sections 15 to 18, and

      (b) the proceedings result in a conviction which is subsequently quashed on an appeal under section 7(2) or (5) as applied by section 8(1).

      (2) A person who had an interest in any property which was subject to the order may apply to the Court of Session for compensation.
      (3) The Court of Session may order compensation to be paid to the applicant if satisfied—

      (a) that the applicant has suffered loss in consequence of anything done in relation to the property by or in pursuance of the forfeiture order or restraint order, and

      456

      (b) that, having regard to all the circumstances, it is appropriate to order compensation to be paid.

      (4) Compensation payable under this paragraph shall be paid by the Secretary of State.'.
      No. 57, in page 79, line 48, at end insert—
      '.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

      (a) a forfeiture order or a restraint order is made in or in relation to proceedings for an offence under any of sections 15 to 18, and

      (b) the proceedings result in a conviction which is subsequently quashed on an appeal under section 7(2) or (5), as applied by section 8(2).

      (2) A person who had an interest in any property which was subject to the order may apply to the High Court for compensation.
      (3) The High Court may order compensation to be paid to the applicant if satisfied—

      (a) that the applicant has suffered loss in consequence of anything done in relation to the property by or in pursuance of the forfeiture order or restraint order, and

      (b) that, having regard to all the circumstances, it is appropriate to order compensation to be paid.

      (4) Compensation payable under this paragraph shall be paid by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Schedule 5

      TERRORIST INVESTIGATIONS
      Amendment made: No. 58, in page 94, line 20, at end insert—
      '18A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by a written order which relates to specified premises give to any constable in Northern Ireland—

      (a) the authority which may be given by a search warrant under paragraph 1;

      (b) the authority which may be given by a search warrant under paragraph 11.

      (2) An order shall not be made under this paragraph unless—

      (a) it appears to the Secretary of State that the information which it would be necessary to provide to the court in support of an application for a warrant would, if disclosed, be likely to place any person in danger or prejudice the capability of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to investigate an offence under any of sections 15 to 18 or under section 55, and

      (b) the order is made for the purposes of an investigation of the commission, preparation or instigation of an offence under any of sections 15 to 18 or under section 55.

      (3) The Secretary of State may make an order under sub-paragraph (1)(a) in relation to particular premises only if satisfied—

      (a) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is material on the premises which is likely to be of substantial value, whether by itself or together with other material, to the investigation mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b), and which does not consist of or include excepted material, and

      (b) that the authority of an order is likely to be necessary in the circumstances of the case.

      (4) The Secretary of State may make an order under sub-paragraph (1)(b) in relation to particular premises if satisfied that an order made under paragraph 5 in relation to material on the premises has not been complied with.
      (5) The Secretary of State may also make an order under sub-paragraph (1)(b) in relation to particular premises if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that—

      (a) there is material on the premises which consists of or includes excluded material or special procedure material but does not include items subject to legal privilege,

      457

      (b) the material is likely to be of substantial value, whether by itself or together with other material, to the investigation mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b), and

      (c) an order under paragraph 5 would not be appropriate in relation to the material for the reason mentioned in paragraph 12(4)(a) or (b) or because the investigation mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) might be seriously prejudiced unless a constable can secure immediate access to the material.

      (6) An order under sub-paragraph (1)(b) may not be made except in the circumstances specified in sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).
      (7) A person commits an offence if he wilfully obstructs a search under this paragraph.
      (8) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (7) shall be liable on summary conviction to—

      (a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months,

      (b) a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or

      (c) both.

      18B.—(1) The Secretary of State may exercise the power to make an order under paragraph 5 in relation to any person in Northern Ireland who is specified in the order.
      (2) An order shall not be made by virtue of this paragraph unless it appears to the Secretary of State that the information which it would be necessary to provide to a county court judge in support of an application for an order under paragraph 5 would, if disclosed—

      (a) be likely to place any person in danger, or

      (b) be likely to prejudice the capability of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to investigate an offence under any of sections 15 to 18 or under section 55.

      (3) Paragraphs 5 to 9 shall apply to the making of an order under paragraph 5 by virtue of this paragraph with the following modifications—

      (a) references to a county court judge shall be taken as references to the Secretary of State,

      (b) the references to "a terrorist investigation" in paragraphs 5(1) and 6(2)(a) shall be taken as references to an investigation of the commission, preparation or instigation of an offence under any of sections 15 to 18 or under section 55, and

      (c) the references to "a terrorist investigation" in paragraphs 6(2)(b) and 6(3)(a) shall be taken as references to the investigation mentioned in paragraph 6(2)(a).

      (4) Paragraph 10 shall not apply in relation to an order made under paragraph 5 by virtue of this paragraph.
      (5) The Secretary of State may vary or revoke an order made by virtue of this paragraph.
      (6) A person commits an offence if he contravenes an order made by virtue of this paragraph.
      (7) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (6) shall be liable—

      (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both, or

      (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

      18C.—(1) The Secretary of State may by a written order require any person in Northern Ireland who is specified in the order to provide an explanation of any material—

      (a) seized in pursuance of an order under paragraph 18A, or

      (b) produced or made available to a constable in pursuance of an order made by virtue of paragraph 18B.

      (2) The provisions of paragraphs 13(2) to (4) and 14 shall apply to an order under this paragraph as they apply to an order under paragraph 13.
      (3) The provisions of paragraph 16(3) to (5) shall apply to an order under this paragraph as they apply to a notice under paragraph 16.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Schedule 6

      PORT AND BORDER CONTROLS
      Amendment made: No. 59, in page 100, line 43, leave out 'an examining officer' and insert—
      'a constable for the police area in which the port is situated (or, where the port is in Northern Ireland, to a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary).'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Schedule 7

      DETENTION
      Amendments made: No. 60, in page 104, line 14, at end insert—
      () In this Schedule a reference to a police station includes a reference to any place where the Secretary of State has directed under sub-paragraph (1) that a person is to be detained under section 40.'.
      No. 61, in page 104, line 17, at end insert—
      (his examination under that Schedule,'.
      No. 62, in page 104, line 20, at end insert—
      '() A constable who arrests a person under section 40 shall take him as soon as is reasonably practicable to the police station which the constable considers the most appropriate.'.
      No. 63, in page 104, line 21, at end insert—
      '() Where a person is arrested in one Part of the United Kingdom and all or part of his detention takes place in another Part, the provisions of this Schedule which apply to detention in a particular Part of the United Kingdom apply in relation to him while he is detained in that Part.'.
      No. 64, in page 104, line 33, at end insert—

      'Rights: England, Wales and Northern Ireland
      2A.—(l) Subject to paragraph 2C, a person detained under Schedule 6 or section 40 at a police station in England, Wales or Northern Ireland shall be entitled, if he so requests, to have one named person informed as soon as is reasonably practicable that he is being detained there.
      (2) The person named must be—

      (a) a friend of the detained person,

      (b) a relative, or

      (c) a person who is known to the detained person or who is likely to take an interest in his welfare.

      (3) Where a detained person is transferred from one police station to another, he shall be entitled to exercise the right under this paragraph in respect of the police station to which he is transferred.
      2B.—(1) Subject to paragraphs 2C and 2D, a person detained under Schedule 6 or section 40 at a police station in England, Wales or Northern Ireland shall be entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor as soon as is reasonably practicable, privately and at any time.
      (2) Where a request is made under sub-paragraph (I), the request and the time at which it was made shall be recorded.
      2C.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), an officer of at least the rank of superintendent may authorise a delay—

      (a) in informing the person named by a detained person under paragraph 2A;

      (b) in permitting a detained person to consult a solicitor under paragraph 2B.

      (2) But where a person is detained under section 40 he must be permitted to exercise his rights under paragraphs 2A and 2B before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (3) of that section.
      (3) An officer may give an authorisation under sub-paragraph (1) only if he has reasonable grounds for believing—

      459

      (a) in the case of an authorisation under sub-paragraph (1)(a), that informing the named person of the detained person's detention will have any of the consequences specified in sub-paragraph (4), or

      (b) in the case of an authorisation under sub-paragraph (1)(b), that the exercise of the right under paragraph 2B at the time when the detained person desires to exercise it will have any of the consequences specified in subparagraph (4).

      (4) Those consequences are—

      (a) interference with or harm to evidence of a serious arrestable offence,

      (b) interference with or physical injury to any person,

      (c) the alerting of persons who are suspected of having committed a serious arrestable offence but who have not been arrested for it,

      (d) the hindering of the recovery of property obtained as a result of a serious arrestable offence,

      (e) interference with the gathering of information about the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism,

      (f) the alerting of a person and thereby making it more difficult to prevent an act of terrorism, and

      (g) the alerting of a person and thereby making it more difficult to secure a person's apprehension, prosecution or conviction in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.

      (5) If an authorisation under sub-paragraph (1) is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.
      (6) Where an authorisation under sub-paragraph (1) is given—

      (a) the detained person shall be told the reason for the delay as soon as is reasonably practicable, and

      (b) the reason shall be recorded as soon as is reasonably practicable.

      (7) Where the reason for authorising delay ceases to subsist there may be no further delay in permitting the exercise of the right in the absence of a further authorisation under sub-paragraph (1).
      (8) In this paragraph "serious arrestable offence" has the meaning given by section 116 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (in relation to England and Wales) and by Article 87 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (in relation to Northern Ireland); but it also includes—

      (a) an offence under any of the provisions mentioned in section 39(1)(a) of this Act, and

      (b) an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offence under any of the provisions mentioned in section 39(1)(a).

      2D.—(1) A direction under this paragraph may provide that a detained person who wishes to exercise the right under paragraph 2B may consult a solicitor only in the sight and hearing of a qualified officer.
      (2) A direction under this paragraph may be given—

      (a) where the person is detained at a police station in England or Wales, by an officer of at least the rank of Commander or Assistant Chief Constable, or

      (b) where the person is detained at a police station in Northern Ireland, by an officer of at least the rank of Assistant Chief Constable.

      (3) A direction under this paragraph may be given only if the officer giving it has reasonable grounds for believing that, unless the direction is given, the exercise of the right by the detained person will have any of the consequences specified in paragraph 2C(4).
      (4) In this paragraph "a qualified officer" means a police officer who—

      (a) is of at least the rank of inspector,

      (b) is of the uniformed branch of the force of which the officer giving the direction is a member, and

      460

      (c) in the opinion of the officer giving the direction, has no connection with the detained person's case.

      (5) A direction under this paragraph shall cease to have effect once the reason for giving it ceases to subsist.'.
      No. 65, in page 106, line 41, leave out from 'shall' to the end of line 48 and insert '—

      (a) issue a code of practice about the audio recording of interviews to which this paragraph applies, and

      (b) make an order requiring the audio recording of interviews to which this paragraph applies in accordance with any relevant code of practice under paragraph (a).

      (1A) The Secretary of State may make an order requiring the video recording of—

      (a) interviews to which this paragraph applies;

      (b) interviews to which this paragraph applies which take place in a particular Part of the United Kingdom.

      (1B) An order under sub-paragraph (IA) shall specify whether the video recording which it requires is to be silent or with sound.
      (IC) Where an order is made under sub-paragraph (1A)—

      (a) the Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice about the video recording of interviews to which the order applies, and

      (b) the order shall require the interviews to be video recorded in accordance with any relevant code of practice under paragraph (a).

      (ID) This paragraph applies to—

      (a) any interview by a constable of a person detained under section 40, and

      (b) any interview by a constable of a person detained under Schedule 6, if the interview takes place in a police station.

      (1E) A code of practice under this paragraph—

      (a) may make provision in relation to a particular Part of the United Kingdom;

      (b) may make different provision for different Parts of the United Kingdom.

      9A.—(I) This paragraph applies to a code of practice under paragraph 9.
      (2) Where the Secretary of State proposes to issue a code of practice he shall—

      (a) publish a draft,

      (b) consider any representations made to him about the draft, and

      (c) if he thinks it appropriate, modify the draft in the light of any representations made to him.

      (3) The Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the code before Parliament.
      (4) When the Secretary of State has laid a draft code before Parliament he may bring it into operation by order.
      (5) The Secretary of State may revise a code and issue the revised code; and sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) shall apply to a revised code as they apply to an original code.
      (6) The failure by a constable to observe a provision of a code shall not of itself make him liable to criminal or civil proceedings.
      (7) A code—

      (a) shall be admissible in evidence in criminal and civil proceedings, and

      (b) shall be taken into account by a court or tribunal in any Case in which it appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant.'

      No. 66, in page 106, transpose paragraphs 9 and 10 to after paragraph 2.
      No. 67, in page 107, line 5, leave out 'arrested and'.
      No. 68, in page 108, line 9, leave out '12(3)' and insert '12(4)'.
      No. 69, in page 108, line 21, leave out first '(3)' and insert '(4)'.
      No. 70, in page 110, line 36, leave out from 'under' to end of line 37 and insert 'paragraphs 2A and 2B'.
      No. 71, in page 110, line 39, leave out 'sections' and insert 'paragraphs'.
      No. 72, in page 110, line 40, after 'accordance', insert 'with'.
      No. 73, in page 110, line 40, leave out 'that section' and insert 'paragraph 2C'.
      No. 74, in page 110, line 43, leave out 'sections' and insert 'paragraphs'.
      No. 75, in page 111, line 1, leave out—
      'section 56 and 58 of the 1984 Act'
      and insert—
      'paragraphs 2A, 2B and 2C'.
      No. 76, in page 111, leave out lines 3 to 5.
      No. 77, in page 112, line 15, at end insert—
      '(3) For the purposes of this Schedule, an application for a warrant is made when written or oral notice of an intention to make the application is given to a judicial authority.'.
      No. 78, in page 112, line 17, leave out 'made' and insert 'heard'.
      No. 79, in page 112, line 19, leave out 'an' and insert 'the'.
      No. 80, in page 112, line 19, leave out 'will be made' and insert 'has been made,
      () the time at which the application was made,'.
      No. 81, in page 112, line 20, leave out 'made' and insert 'be heard'.
      No. 82, in page 113, line 6, leave out 'making' and insert 'who has made'.
      No. 83, in page 113, line 29, at end insert—

      'Adjournments
      .—(1) A judicial authority may adjourn the hearing of an application for a warrant only if the hearing is adjourned to a date before the expiry of the period mentioned in section 40(3).
      (2) This paragraph shall not apply to an adjournment under paragraph 30(2).'.
      No. 84, in page 113, line 42, after 'Paragraphs', insert '27(3) and'.
      No. 85, in page 113, line 43, at end insert—
      '(5) A judicial authority may adjourn the hearing of an application under sub-paragraph (1) only if the hearing is adjourned to a date before the expiry of the period specified in the warrant.
      (6) Sub-paragraph (5) shall not apply to an adjournment under paragraph 30(2).'.
      No. 86, in page 113, line 46, after 'detained', insert—
      'in accordance with section 40(5) or (6) or'.
      No. 87, in page 113, line 47, after 'that', insert 'any of'.
      No. 88, in page 113, line 47, leave out 'for his detention'.
      No. 89, in page 113, line 48, after 129(1)', insert—
      '(a) and (b) upon which the judicial authority authorised his further detention'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Schedule 13

      EXERCISE OF OFFICERS' POWERS
      Amendments made: No. 90, in page 130, leave out lines 14 to 16.
      No. 91, in page 130, line 23, leave out—
      'the whole or part of.
      No. 92, in page 130, line 33, leave out—
      'the whole or part of.
      No. 93, in page 130, line 34, after 'the', insert 'first.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Schedule 14
      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 94, in page 130, line 42, at end insert—

      'Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (c.26)
      .—(1) The Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) For paragraph 19A of Schedule 1 (list of offences) substitute—

      Financing terrorism
      19A. An offence under any of sections 15 to 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000." '.
      No. 95, in page 130, line 42, at end insert—

      'Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/228 (N.I.8))
      .—(1) In Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid. Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (proceedings for which legal aid may be given under Part II of that Order) at the end of Part I insert—
      "8. Proceedings brought by an individual before the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission.".
      (2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) is without prejudice to the power to make regulations under Article 10(2) of the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 amending or revoking the provision inserted by that subparagraph.'.
      No. 96, in page 131, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert—
      '() For section 56(10) and (11) (application of right to have someone informed) substitute—
      "(10) Nothing in this section applies to a person arrested or detained under the terrorism provisions.".'.
      No. 97, in page 131, leave out lines 19 to 25 and insert—
      '() For section 58(12) to (18) (application of right of access to legal advice) substitute—
      "(12) Nothing in this section applies to a person arrested or detained under the terrorism provisions.".'.
      No. 98, in page 131, line 44, leave out '(5)'.
      No. 99, in page 131, line 45, leave out from '58)' to end of line 47 and insert '—

      (a) in subsection (3) for "subsections (4) and (5)" insert "subsection (4)", and

      (b) subsection (5) shall cease to have effect.'.

      No. 100, in page 131, line 48, leave out 'for "section' and insert—
      'for "or after being arrested under section'.
      No. 101, in page 131, line 50, leave out 'Schedule 5" substitute "section' and insert—
      'Schedule 5 to that Act by an examining officer who is a constable" substitute "or after being arrested under section'.
      No. 102, in page 132, line 4, leave out 'for "Part' and insert—
      'for "or an offence under Part'.
      No. 103, in page 132, line 5, leave out 'substitute "any' and insert—
      'substitute "or an offence under any'.
      No. 104, in page 132, line 6, leave out 'In' and insert 'For'.
      No. 105, in page 132, line 6, leave out from 'property)' to end of line 8 and insert 'substitute—
      "(d) an order under section 23 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (forfeiture orders)," '.
      No. 106, in page 132, line 8, at end insert—
      '(4) In section 93E (application to Scotland of sections 93A to 93D)—

      (a) in the definition of offences to which Part VI of the Act applies, for "Part III of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989" substitute "any of sections 15 to 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000"; and

      (b) in the definition of proceeds of criminal conduct, for paragraph (b) substitute—

      "(b) terrorist property within the meaning of section 14 of the Terrorism Act 2000".'.

      No. 107, in page 132, line 8, at end insert—

      'Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 (c.3)
      .—(1) The Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In section 6(5) (breach of terms of declaration), in the definition of "proscribed organisation" for "section 30 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996" substitute "section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000".
      (3) In Schedule 2 (declaration against terrorism) for "Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996" substitute "Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000".'.
      No. 108, in page 132, line 20, leave out 'Schedule 5" substitute' and insert—
      'Schedule 5 to that Act by an examining officer who is a constable" substitute'.
      No. 109, in page 132, leave out from line 39 to line 43 on page 133.
      No. 110, in page 133, line 43, at end insert—
      '() In Article 60 (tape-recording of interviews), omit paragraph (2).'.
      No. 111, in page 134, line 4, at end insert—
      () In Article 66 (codes of practice), omit paragraph (12).'.
      No. 112, in page 134, line 24, at end insert—

      'Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 43)
      .—(1) The Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (2) of section I (offences to which Part (confiscation) applies), for "Part III of the 1989 Act" substitute "any of sections 15 to 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000".
      (3) In subsection (1)(c) of section 42 (reciprocal enforcement of orders), for "1989 Act" substitute "Terrorism Act 2000".
      (4) In subsection (1) of section 49 (interpretation), the definition of "the 1989 Act" shall cease to have effect.'.
      No. 113, in page 134, line 41, at end insert—

      'Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (c.25)
      .—(1) The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 shall, in its application to Northern Ireland (as set out in Schedule 4 to that Act), be amended as follows.
      (2) In section 14A(l) (public interest: review for scheduled offences) for "section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996" substitute "section 64 of the Terrorism Act 2000".
      (3) In section 39(3)(a) (start of trial on indictment without a jury) for "section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996" substitute "section 74 of the Terrorism Act 2000".'.
      No. 114, in page 135, line 2, at end insert—

      'Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (c. 7)
      .—(1) This paragraph applies to a reference in paragraph 9 or 10 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (amnesty) to an offence under a provision ("the old provision") of—

      (a) the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, or

      (b) the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.

      (2) The reference shall be taken as a reference to an offence under this Act which is committed in circumstances which would have amounted to the commission of an offence under the old provision before it ceased to have effect.
      (3) Sub-paragraph (2) has effect for the purpose of the application of section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (amnesty) in relation to anything done after the old provision ceases to have effect.'.
      No. 115, in page 135, line 12, at end insert—

      'Access to Justice Act 1999 (c. 22)
      .—(1) In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Community Legal Service: exceptions to excluded services) after paragraph (g) insert—
      "or
      (h) the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission".
      (2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) is without prejudice to the power to make regulations under section 6(7) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 amending or revoking the provision inserted by that sub-paragraph.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Schedule 15

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 116, in page 135, line 19, at end insert—

      '1984 c. 60.

      Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

      Section 116(5).'.

      No. 117, in page 135, line 35, at end insert—

      '1995 c. 40.

      Criminal Procedure (Consequential In Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1995.

      In Schedule 4, paragraph 72.'.

      No. 118, in page 135, line 35, at end insert—

      '1995 c. 43.

      Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995.

      In section 49(1), the definition of "the 1989 Act".'.

      No. 119, in page 136, line 4, at end insert—

      '1999 c. 22.

      Access to Justice Act 1999.

      In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2, the word "or" after paragraph (f).'.

      No. 120, in page 136, line 12, column 3, at end insert—

      'Article 60(2). Article 66(12).'.

      No. 121, in page 136, line 23, column 3, leave out "6,".—[Mrs. McGuire.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Charles Clarke]
      1.25 am
      Mr. Lidington: I wish that this Bill were not necessary. However, it is very necessary for the protection and security of the people of this country. Throughout our proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and this evening, the Minister and his team have approached the subject with realism. They have also shown courtesy to the views that have been expressed by hon. Members of all parties.
      Conservative Members have some differences of opinion with the Government over some aspects of the Bill, but we agree strongly with the proposals. We agree that the Bill is essential and should be on the statute book swiftly. If there is a Division on Third Reading, we shall support the Government.
      1.26 am
      Mr. McNamara: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friends the Ministers, who have listened to the debate and tried to meet the points made. I cannot support the Bill wholeheartedly, but I shall not vote against it.
      My hon. Friend the Minister of State was right to pay tribute to the work of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Liberty and the Committee on the Administration of Justice. When he introduced the Bill originally, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned the work of Gearty and Kimbell in preparing the ground for Lord Lloyd's report. I declare an interest, as I was responsible for that work being produced, with the help of a considerable grant from Unison to the civil liberties department of King's College.
      All the bodies that I have mentioned have expressed concern that the Bill does not meet the requirements of the European convention on human rights. Nothing that we have heard in evidence this evening has persuaded me or some other Labour Members that the Bill meets the main thrust of some of the points of the convention.
      On Second Reading, I drew attention to some of the points that the Bill failed to meet, and I want to revisit them and see where we have got to.
      Clause 3 deals with prescription. Article 11 of the ECHR provides for a right to peaceful assembly and asserts that limitation of that right must be proportionate. Proscription is a cosmetic part of the prevention of terrorism legislation that is little used in the fight against terrorism. We discussed that earlier this evening.
      Clause 5 and schedule 3 deal with the appeals commission for proscribed organisations, as we discussed earlier. Judicial review is the first test of appeal. In the case involving gays in the military, the European Court of Human Rights said that that was not sufficient and that the case must be heard on its merits.
      466
      Clause 18 deals with the duty to disclose information. Its reversal of the burden of proof is especially dangerous, given the breadth of the definition of terrorism. It contravenes article 10 of the convention, which deals with the right of freedom of expression, in that it limits press freedom to collect information.
      Clause 38 deals with the tipping-off offence, and again reverses the onus. It will stifle criticism of police and security and could contravene article 10 of the ECHR.
      Clause 39 and 40 deal with powers of arrest, and will allow a constable to make an arrest without a warrant, on the grounds of reasonable suspicion. If such arrests take place to obtain information, rather than to secure a conviction, they will contravene article 5(1)(c) of the convention, which states that the intention behind an arrest must be to bring a suspect before a competent legal authority. Stop and search is contrary to the ECHR. In paragraph 2(6) of schedule 14 and clause 40(3), the right of access to lawyers can be delayed up to 48 hours. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) showed how that could breach article 6 of the European convention on human rights on the right of access to legal representation.
      Clause 40 and schedule 7 deal with the detention of an individual for up to 48 hours and the exclusion of legal representatives from the application to extend the detention. Again, article 6 demands a right of access to a lawyer. Clause 43 deals with stop and search powers applied to anyone whom a policeman reasonably believes to be a terrorist. That is extremely dangerous, given the wide definition of terrorism, and probably violates article 8 of the ECHR on the right to privacy, unless interference is necessary in a democratic society.
      Article 5(1)(c) of the convention provides for arrest, but with the requirement 'that a person is brought before a court. That provision is also contravened. Clauses 56 and 57 deal with offences to possess items and information that give rise to reasonable suspicion that they are being used for terrorist purposes. Again, the reverse onus clauses are included, which possibly breach article 6(2) of the convention on the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
      Article 10 of the ECHR provides a right to receive and impart information without interference from a public body, even if the ideas shock and disturb the state. That can be overruled only if the benefit to the state outweighs the cost to society. Given the current security climate, coupled with the reverse onus of proof, that would not seem to be a proportionate response.
      I do not believe that the Government have faced up to the matters in the convention. I do not intend to divide the House because I think that that will be dealt with effectively and more directly by the European Court of Human Rights and, if not, by our own judges after October of this year. The Minister has, I believe, failed in that respect.
      I welcome the independent review. I am only sorry that it is not followed by a guaranteed debate on the Floor of the House, plus an affirmative order, keeping the Bill in operation. The amendment that was not accepted earlier would have made the matter more complete.
      It is regrettable that new clause 5 was not debated, because it dealt with the proposed Bill of Rights that is being discussed in Northern Ireland and that will be followed by legislation either later this year or early

      467
      next year. It will be a problem ensuring that the contents of the proposed human rights Bill are compatible with those of this Bill. It would have been wise to wait for that legislation. I regret that we did not have the criminal law review so that we could compare the two. It is a sad thing that the other place may have it but we will not. It will make judgments that we have been unable to make.
      I regret that the Bill is necessary, but I will not divide the House on it.
      1.33 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I begin with the less controversial matters and thank the Ministers for courteously dealing with these matters in Committee and afterwards, and for the help that their officials have given in providing information. That was much appreciated.
      The debate has been appreciated by all right hon. and hon. Members, from all parties. Points were made and answered—we did not just play to each other in a series of monologues. Where we differed, we differed, but at least we tested the opinion of others.
      I join the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in thanking those who briefed the Committee generally and individual members personally. I thank Liberty, which is based in my constituency, for its assistance, not least on an amendment on a crucial matter. I also thank the two Northern Ireland organisations, the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the Human Rights Commission.
      That leads me to the more controversial element of my remarks. The chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission judged at the end of our proceedings—up to yesterday—that the Bill was seriously flawed. The commission is the one human rights body in the United Kingdom that we have set up to give statutory advice to Parliament and to public authorities. If it tells us that we are doing the wrong thing, we should listen carefully.
      On Second Reading, my colleagues and I made it clear that we support the idea of a United Kingdom-wide Bill, rather than a partial UK Bill, and a Bill that would get rid of exclusion orders. This Bill does that. However, we said that we did not support the idea of a Bill that could not return to the House for further consideration once it was on the statute book. There is a difference between permanent legislation and legislation that contains no power of review. One can have the permanent framework, but with a power of review. It is a serious defect that the Bill does not have that.
      After Second Reading, which we supported because we support the principle of a Terrorism Bill, we suggested having a Special Standing Committee to consider and take evidence on some of the difficult issues—we have now suggested that twice this year, but we do not do it to be tokenism. Tonight's debate has vindicated the wisdom of that proposal. The key issue in the Bill is how one defines terrorism. Clearly, a huge amount of work remains to be done to achieve a definition that would meet with the agreement of large numbers of people in the House and outside it, if that can be achieved. A Special Standing
      468
      Committee might have been able to make some progress on that matter, but we did not have one. It was left to the debate in Committee.
      One of the fundamental flaws that remains in the Bill is the fact that the definition of terrorism is extremely wide and is not targeted. Large groups of people whom we have never contemplated as terrorists may well be caught within it.
      Another area of concern is that excessive powers are given to Ministers and the authorities and cannot be reviewed. A further recurrent problem is that far too often the Bill does not uphold the normal legal rights of individuals. Only an hour ago, we debated the reverse burden of proof—defendants have to prove that they are not guilty to establish their innocence.
      Our conclusion is that the Bill has not been amended as it badly needed to be, and that it will not be fit for the statute book when it leaves this House—if Third Reading is agreed to—in that it will not sufficiently uphold liberties and does not get the balance right. We had to make the straightforward, but difficult decision whether to continue to support the Bill or to force a vote. We decided collectively that we could not support the Bill as it stands. It has not made the progress that it ought to have made and the other place will have much work to do on it—in particular on the legal aspects and the civil and criminal justice processes—to put it right.
      However, as it is important that we have UK-wide legislation on terrorism and because the Bill contains some good provisions, we will not go into the Lobby against the Government tonight—[Interruption.] Nearly all my colleagues have been here all evening and have voted many times against specific provisions of the Bill.
      The Bill does not have our support as it needs to be amended significantly. Unless we amend it, it will not get the balance right and the state will end up with excessive powers against the citizen. I hope that the good will and good faith of Ministers will ensure that the work that needs to be done where we and they have said that the Bill is defective, can be done. Above all, if we are to have a Terrorism Bill on the statute book for the whole of the United Kingdom, I hope that we can define terrorism correctly. We regret that we have not made more progress in the three months that the Bill has been in this place.
      1.40 am
      Dr. Lynne Jones: I shall not detain the House for long. Like most hon. Members, I accept that, unfortunately, the measure is necessary. However, I share the concern of my colleagues about the definition of terrorism used in the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Minister, in rejecting the alternative proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), said that that definition could have included the Yorkshire Ripper as a terrorist. I point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that Peter Sutcliffe terrorised the people of Yorkshire—especially women. Many members of the public might feel that a definition that included such a person would be more acceptable than one that included, for example, the women who inflicted serious violence on Hawk jets or who attempted to inflict serious violence on a Trident submarine.

      469
      For that reason, I hope that the Government will use the opportunity afforded during consideration of the Bill in another place to find a new definition that will ensure that the concerns expressed tonight are taken on board.
      1.41 am
      Mr. McDonnell: I apologise to my hon. Friends and comrades for detaining them. Many of us had an almost personal relationship with the predecessor legislation to the Bill.
      In the early 1980s, Errol and Theresa Smalley approached me because they were concerned about their nephew—Paul Hill—who was one of the first people picked up under the prevention of terrorism Acts, and subsequently framed. I visited him in prison over the years—with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I even attended his wedding in Long Lartin. It took more than half a decade to secure his release.
      Throughout the 1980s, many members of the Irish community in this country campaigned for the eradication of the PTA—as did many members of the Labour party. Indeed, at one time, it was the policy of our party to repeal the Act. The PTA was used to harass the Irish community; it was ineffective and a source of injustice.
      The Bill makes that legislation permanent. We have rejected the possibility of a parliamentary review; tonight, we rejected the potential for a quinquennial review. The Bill extends the scope of that legislation; it widens the definition to include many people who could never be defined as terrorist. It sets the scene for further miscarriages of justice. I cannot support the Bill and will vote against it.
      1.43 am
      Mr. Corbyn: I, too, will be brief. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). I also remember clearly the saga of the Guildford Four and the way in which, under the prevention of terrorism Act, wholly innocent people were picked up by the police merely for attending meetings to discuss the situation in Ireland or because they were framed by others. They were subsequently released, but they have never forgotten the scar of interrogation.
      Paul Hill was the first person to be arrested under the PTA. From that, followed the misery of the 17 years that he suffered in prison. I had hoped that we would get rid of such draconian legislation.
      My worry is that the measure that I suspect the House will accept on Third Reading is draconian. It could be used against people who peacefully and legitimately campaign for change in their own country, but who live in the UK because it is not safe for them to mount such campaigns in their home country. That international dimension needs to be considered.
      There is also the question of the rejected amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), which sought to amend the clause that forces people to prove their innocence. That theme runs through the Bill, and it is bad legislation. It shifts the burden from the prosecution to prove an individual's guilt to the individual to prove their innocence, something that is obviously extremely difficult to do.
      470
      We have been through the pain of miscarriages of justice—Birmingham, Guildford, Judith Ward, Prem, and many others. Not all those cases were related to the prevention of terrorism Act, but they were miscarriages of justice. Parliament recognised that by setting up the Criminal Cases Review Commission. We recognised that the legal system in this country was not infallible. My concern is that without any possibility of review, the Bill might lead, although I hope that it will not, to further miscarriages of justice.
      I suspect that we will be back here very soon, either because the House of Lords will significantly amend the Bill so that it must return here or because it will be overridden by the European convention on human rights and found wanting in European or British courts. I suspect that we will be amending the Bill in the near future. We ought to have better drafting of legislation in the first place so that we do not end up in that situation.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. I have seen the effect of miscarriages of justice caused by crudely formed legislation to deal with terrorism. I am not in favour of violence or terrorism, but one does not solve those problems by imprisoning the innocent. In fact, one creates a far worse problem because if one imprisons the innocent, what happens to the guilty? The Bill will not do us any good, and we will be back here discussing it in the near future. I shall join my hon. Friend in opposing the Bill.
      1.46 am
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I begin by expressing my thanks, first to members of the Committee, Opposition spokesmen and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office for the way in which we have worked. Secondly, I thank the Bill team, who gave tremendous support throughout the proceedings, not only to Ministers but to all members of the Committee. Thirdly, I thank the officials of the House, including Hansard staff and clerks, who have worked extremely effectively. We have had an efficient and full discussion of many of the issues.
      We have had a lengthy debate this evening, so I shall try to be brief, but I need to address some of the points that have been made. It is clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was not satisfied with the answers given in the discussion, and that is entirely his right. However, it is simply not true that the Government have not faced up to the issues. In particular we have directly addressed the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the various issues arising from that. I know that there will be controversy about the issues because people will argue that cases will arise.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) have expressed concern about the inability to return to these issues. The doctrine of the omnicompetence of Parliament has simply not been grasped. There is a series of issues about the ways in which Parliament exercises its scrutiny in discussion, but it is possible, and indeed likely, that Parliament will return to discussion of these issues because it has a right and a duty to do so.
      We have had a full discussion about the definitional points. Our definition is right, and it is defensible and positive. I acknowledge the difficulties of balance, and I repeat, as I have said throughout the debate, that we will

      471
      consider proposals that have been made. I repeat my thanks to those organisations that have sought to make constructive proposals.
      The Bill starts from the necessity to recognise the existence of domestic and international terrorism, and the terrible things that terrorists do—blowing planes out of the sky, destroying buildings, blowing up people and knee-capping. There is a vast range of activities. The obligation not only of Ministers but of all elected politicians and legislators is to ask what we can do to address international terrorism, and to do everything in our power to prevent those who want to terrorise us from being able to do so. Our need and our duty is to fight terrorism domestically and internationally, and that is what the Bill is about.
      It is absolutely true—it has been a theme running through our discussions—that the need to defeat international and domestic terrorism has to be set against the individual liberties of every citizen in the country and their right to be properly treated under the law. Another theme has been the need to avoid the abuses of justice, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) referred. They are absolutely right to say that we must achieve the right balance.
      I say as emphatically as I can that it is our duty both to maintain the rights of individuals under the rule of law and to maintain their right to very existence and life in the face of the threat posed by international terrorism. It is our duty to ensure that we do all in our power to inhibit terrorists' ability to destroy, kill and create a negative atmosphere in our society. That is why we have introduced the Bill, it is why I hope that my hon. Friends will support it and it is why I am grateful for the support of the official Opposition. I commend the Bill to the whole House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 1.

      Division No. 114]

      [1.50 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Cann, Jamie

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Allen, Graham

      Casale, Roger

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Cawsey, Ian

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Austin, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Banks, Tony

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Barnes, Harry

      Beard, Nigel

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clelland, David

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Benton, Joe

      Clwyd, Ann

      Berry, Roger

      Coaker, Vernon

      Blackman, Liz

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Collins, Tim

      Borrow, David

      Colman, Tony

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Connarty, Michael

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Corston, Jean

      Burgon, Colin

      Cousins, Jim

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Cox, Tom

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Cranston, Ross

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Crausby, David

      472

      Cummings, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Darvill, Keith

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      McWalter, Tony

      Dawson, Hilton

      Mallaber, Judy

      Day, Stephen

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Dowd, Jim

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Merron, Gillian

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Miller, Andrew

      Ennis, Jeff

      Moffatt, Laura

      Flint, Caroline

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Morley, Elliot

      Gapes, Mike

      Mountford, Kali

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Godsiff, Roger

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Goggins, Paul

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Olner, Bill

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Pearson, Ian

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Grogan, John

      Pike, Peter L

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Plaskitt, James

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Pope, Greg

      Hanson, David

      Pound, Stephen

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Healey, John

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Purchase, Ken

      Heppell, John

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Hesford, Stephen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Hinchliffe, David

      Rammell, Bill

      Hope, Phil

      Rapson, Syd

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Rooney, Terry

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hurst, Alan

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hutton, John

      Ruane, Chris

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Illsley, Eric

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Salter, Martin

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Sawford, Phil

      Jamieson, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jenkins, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Singh, Marsha

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Soley, Clive

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Kidney, David

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Stringer, Graham

      Laxton, Bob

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Lepper, David

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Levitt, Tom

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Linton, Martin

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Lock, David

      Timms, Stephen

      Love, Andrew

      Tipping, Paddy

      Luff, Peter

      Todd, Mark

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Touhig, Don

      McCabe, Steve

      Trickett, Jon

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      McFall, John

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      473

      Tynan, Bill

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Wood, Mike

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Woolas, Phil

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Worthington, Tony

      Watts, David

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      White, Brian

      Wyatt, Derek

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Winnick, David

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

      NOES

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Flynn, Paul

      Mr. John McDonnell and

      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
2.1 am
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
Many principles behind the continuance order have been discussed in more than nine hours of debate today, and in many hours in Committee and on Second Reading of the Terrorism Bill. I shall therefore try not to detain the House for too long.
In an intervention on Third Reading of the Terrorism Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked about its compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998. It is right for me to tell the House our opinion of the compatibility of the continuance order with that Act.
The United Kingdom Government have had to enter a derogation from the 1998 Act because of the executive power for extensions of detention. That derogation arose from the case of Brogan, which came before the European Court. Apart from that derogation, I am satisfied that all the provisions that we want to renew tonight comply with convention rights.
We are considering the 1999 report on the operation of the prevention of terrorism Act by Mr. John Rowe QC, who has undertaken his usual thorough review of the provisions.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: When will my right hon. Friend inform the Council of Europe that the derogation from the Human Rights Act 1998 no longer needs to apply to Britain?
Mr. Straw: We should be able to do that when the Terrorism Bill becomes law, if it is passed in another place. I hope that that will happen.
I should like to place on record my appreciation and thanks to Mr. Rowe for a further year's work in carefully and assiduously reviewing the operation of the provisions. To pick up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North made about human rights, in paragraph 21 of the report Mr. Rowe states that on many occasions, the person interviewed—police officers or others to whom the prevention of terrorism Act is relevant—
volunteered, before I mentioned it, the question of the Human Rights Act, or breach of human rights. I learned that in many spheres there is active training going on about the elements of the Human Rights Act and human rights; and the general impression I received was that people are aware of the need to have in mind the Convention.
Those remarks are encouraging.
Mr. Rowe's report is concerned with 1999. In those 12 months, we had great optimism over the Good Friday agreement and, towards the end of the year, considerable pessimism about its full implementation. Notwithstanding the fact that the ceasefire continued, seven deaths in Northern Ireland occurred as a consequence of terrorist violence. I ought to remind the House of two: in June, Elizabeth O'Neill was killed in her home by a pipe bomb thrown through the window and, almost exactly a year ago, Rosemary Nelson was murdered in an act of sheer

475
brutality as she left her home in her car. Terrorist-related incidents also occurred on the mainland. In particular, I draw the House's attention to the siege of the Greek embassy in London last year.
The Home Office statistical bulletin on the operation of the prevention of terrorism legislation, which was published earlier this month, gives details of the use of those powers. In summary, 12 persons were detained in connection with Northern Irish terrorism during 1999—down from 20 the previous year—and 87 were detained in connection with international terrorism, up from 25 in 1998. The former powers to make exclusion orders were not used in 1999 and have now lapsed. That followed undertakings that I gave in opposition, which we have implemented in full in government. Of the 99 persons detained in 1999, 84 were charged with an offence. Extensions of detention were granted for eight persons, 437 persons were examined for more than an hour but not detained and 29 were charged with an offence. Mr. Rowe spells out in his report that he believes that the powers have been properly used and that they are needed for renewal.
Mr. Simon Hughes: A matter on which Mr. Rowe reports is the operation of amendments to the prevention of terrorism legislation represented by the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. His brief chapters 7 and 9 confirm that neither has been used. He makes no comment about that. Does the Home Secretary have a comment as to whether it is necessary for them to continue?
Mr. Straw: I suggest to the House that it does not always follow that the only proof of whether powers are needed is whether they are used. They can often have important deterrent value. That was part of the debate when the House considered that Act in September 1998. I believe that they are necessary for renewal, but the hon. Gentleman will know that they are replaced in the Terrorism Bill.
When the Terrorism Bill receives Royal Assent, as I hope that it will when it is passed by the other place, it will provide new, modernised counter-terrorism legislation proportionate to the threat that we face. However, it is vital that there is continuity and that the existing counter-terrorism powers remain available for the period before the Bill comes into force, pending the enactment and implementation of the new legislation through the renewal of the current legislation by the order.
2.8 am
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Many of the points that we would have expected to cover were dealt with at length when the Terrorism Bill was debated so it may please the House to know that I shall be brief.
I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to Mr. Rowe for his report, which convincingly argues that the provisions of the prevention of terrorism Act are needed for another year. The Conservative party, in opposition and in government, has never shirked its duty to take the toughest stand against terrorism and to give the police and the armed forces the powers that they need
476
to protect the public. In that spirit, we fully support the report's conclusions and with them, therefore, the continuance of the Act.
The reasons given for the Act's continuance are compelling. In the past year, there have been substantial and welcome moves towards peace in the Province of Northern Ireland but, although the security situation in Northern Ireland has greatly improved, none of the main paramilitary organisations has even begun to decommission its illegally held arms and explosives. The capability of the paramilitaries therefore remains undiminished, and their organisations remain firmly intact. They retain huge arsenal of weapons, and continue to carry out shootings, beatings and mutilations and to exile people from their homes.
The Rowe report states that
firearms, and ammunition, and bombing and explosive devices have been discovered, and this, among other things, is clear evidence that paramilitary groups have been making preparations to make violent attacks on the community. In the course of searches by security forces as many firearms have been found in 1999 as in 1998.
While those groups maintain the capability and the infrastructure to perpetrate gross acts of terrorism, we must ensure that our police and security services have the powers that are necessary to combat them.
Acts of violence carried out by paramilitary groups are also still prevalent in the Province. The report states that
through 1999 there has been continuing incidence of deaths, injury and damage to property, carried out by paramilitary groups.
The findings of the report are borne out by figures given in reply to parliamentary questions. The Northern Ireland Office recently stated that there had been 225 shooting or bombing incidents in Northern Ireland during 1999, and figures supplied by the Government reveal that 2,400 persons have been injured as a result of terrorist attacks since the Good Friday agreement. During the same period, 49 deaths have been attributed to the security situation in Northern Ireland. The attack on an hotel in February and recent attempted attacks on Army bases in Northern Ireland remind us that the threat from terrorist groups has not gone away. Even with decommissioning by the main paramilitary groups, the dissidents opposed to the Good Friday agreement will retain their capacity for terror and destruction.
The Act, however, is not concerned solely with Northern Ireland. The Rowe report states that
in the international field, the threat to the United Kingdom of terrorism continues year by year.
We need only read the history of terrorism on the international scene, written by Professor Wilkinson and contained in volume II of the report of Lord Lloyd's inquiry, to realise that the threat is still there.
The order gives special powers to the police and security services to deal with the threat of terrorism. They include provisions allowing for the admissibility of evidence from a police officer that a defendant belonged to a specified organisation, along with other powers which the Home Secretary has already set out and which I shall therefore not repeat.
Dr. Ian Gibson: And this is a brief speech?
Miss Widdecombe: It could become longer, if I were tempted.

477
Today the House has debated the Terrorism Bill, which will combine the existing emergency provisions Act and prevention of terrorism Act in a single piece of permanent UK-wide legislation. As I have said, we support the Bill; but if the Home Secretary speaks again—he does not seem much inclined to do so at the moment—he should give the House an assurance that the order contains all the provisions that it should contain.
I shall not be ungenerous enough to dwell on the error in the Home Office that allowed—
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady will not be surprised to learn that I have double-checked and sought assurances. I cannot be certain that there is not some glitch elsewhere in the small print, but I am assured that every section of the famous part IV—one bit of which was not brought into force last year—is being brought into force this year. The officials have staked their pensions on that.
Miss Widdecombe: I hope that the Home Secretary has staked his pension on it as well, as he has said that he will take personal responsibility for everything that happens in the Horne Office.
In view of that assurance, it only remains for me to regret that, when the Government were in opposition, they did not give us the support that we are rendering them tonight. Nevertheless, we consider it to be overwhelmingly in the interests of the security of Northern Ireland for us to render that support, despite the Government's rather ungenerous approach when they were in opposition.
2.14 am
Mr. Simon Hughes: Mr. Rowe's report is particularly welcome. It is clear that he has done a thorough job in the past year, as he did before. We thank him for that.
It almost goes without saying that one of the benefits of the renewal process is that it has a reporting structure, so that we have the basis on which we can judge the appropriateness of continuing all the legislation. On the basis of the report and analysis, we, like the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), her party and the Government, can come to no conclusion other than that the present legislation should continue while Parliament is debating what legislation to put in its place. There are two reasons why it is vital that we do that.
First, as so often in the past quarter century, we are in a delicate period in the history of Northern Ireland. To take away the security that special legislation gives would be unsettling at the moment, when people are calling for a more settled and permanent solution. If the politics can deliver a settled arrangement with the devolved Assembly and the like, that will be all the more reason why it will not be necessary to have the exceptional powers in an Act such as the PTA.
Secondly, some of us have been here since 5 o'clock to debate the Government's proposed legislation to replace the prevention of terrorism legislation. We have
478
our criticisms. They have been aired, but it would be inappropriate, when the Government have honoured their commitment a year ago to bring a Bill to the House that put legislation in a UK-wide context and that did not require annual renewal, for us then to say that it was right to take away the shield, the safeguard, that the order provides in the interim.
We hope that this will be the last occasion that we have to renew the prevention of terrorism legislation, with its exceptional and, in some ways, unfair powers. Whatever the necessity for anti-terrorism legislation, it would be better if there were a different Act of Parliament, so we hope that it is the last occasion.
Clearly, it would be inappropriate, not just in Northern Ireland but generally, to allow any of our citizens not to have the protection of some legislation, so the choice that we have tonight is stark. Put crudely, it is whether to continue with what we have, which has inadequacies, but which the report shows is working relatively well in providing security; or to have a few months with nothing at all.
We have opted for the first option, but the lesson of the exercise is that it is appropriate not just to have a report regularly to Parliament, but that Parliament should have the opportunity to decide whether and how to renew the legislation. I hope that the practice that we are going through on the PTA will be one that the Government adopt for the Terrorism Bill. At least once a Parliament the provisions should come back to Parliament for consideration on the basis of such a report.
2.18 am
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not intend to delay the House long, but it is incumbent on me to reply to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his action in changing the legislation. We voted against the PTA renewal orders because they contained provisions for internment without trial and for exclusion orders, both of which were contrary to human rights and caused considerable unfairness and unhappiness and considerable problems.
Exclusion orders set up people as targets in the areas in which they lived if they ventured outside their community. Internment without trial was one of the major things that helped to supply recruits to the Provisional IRA, so my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on introducing an order that does not contain either of those provisions. It is good that he has done so, and that fact should be recorded. I have taken part in as many of these debates as anyone, and I am happy that this will be the last on the old legislation. Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), though, I should have hoped for scrutiny of the renewal of the forthcoming Terrorism Act on the Floor of the House every year.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

Dairy Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
2.20 am
Mr. Tim Collins: A little over 12 hours ago, I met a number of my constituents who had come to London as part of a national demonstration by dairy farmers about the state of their industry. Members of Parliament from all parties were present during the demonstration, recognising the scale of difficulties facing the industry.
I congratulate those who organised the demonstration, which began with four farmers sitting around a kitchen table in Kendal, in my constituency. They had in mind the idea of trying to create an agricultural analogy to the Jarrow march of the 1930s when there was great despair in certain communities in our country. It is not wrong of us to recognise that some of our agricultural communities face despair, bleakness, lack of hope and fear for the future that parallel the experiences of some communities in the 1930s.
On a personal note, I should say that my parents were dairy farmers. I no longer have a direct family connection with dairy farming, but I take a personal interest in it. While mentioning family links, I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), whose connections with south Cumbria mean that he holds that part of the world as dearly in his heart as I do in mine. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) for their presence. Both strongly support the dairy industry.
I can reassure the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by saying that I do not intend to make a series of partisan points. I accept, of course, that the problems of the dairy industry did not spring instantly into being on 1 May 1997. Some pre-dated the general election, and we accept that the Government have no magic wand. No one who came to London today to demonstrate believes that the Government have it within their gift simply to solve all the problems of the dairy industry. Nor did any of them seriously question the good will of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I welcome the fact that he met some of the demonstrators, including some of my constituents. I applaud his generosity in making his time available.
That said, the Minister of State will recognise that the scale of the problem cannot be understated. The National Farmers Union has provided me with a brief that states, in its very first sentence:
British dairy farming is facing meltdown.
The crisis is not minor or temporary. Nor is it analogous to anything that we have seen for decades. Its scale is without parallel in recent history.
I commend the Select Committee on Agriculture on its second report on the marketing of milk, which was published earlier this year. It provides useful material for the House, and I shall press the Minister on some points that arise from it.
480
The issues raised by many of the farmers who came to the demonstration today will not be unfamiliar to the Minister, but they bear some repetition. Farmers find it extremely frustrating that they sell milk at sometimes less than half—even no more than a third—of the price of bottled water in some supermarkets. It is impossible for any farmer, however efficient and however much he or she bears down on costs, to break even when the milk price is so low. Farmers feel strongly that they are asked to meet, and succeed in doing so, the highest milk quality standards in Europe. Yet they receive the lowest reward of any farmers in Europe. The United Kingdom is bottom of the European milk price league. On some comparisons, the milk price is lower now than it has ever been. They feel that the issue of agrimonetary compensation needs to be addressed seriously by the Government.
We recognise that it is not an easy issue, and the Minister will know that previous Governments have not found it easy to address it—in some ways, the Government have been more generous than their predecessor on the issue—but she will also recognise that the scale of the difficulties facing the industry are greater than they were under any previous Government. Therefore, I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will be able to give serious consideration to the issue. As she knows, the money has to be claimed by April, or the opportunity to claim it will disappear.
Today, dairy farmers raised with a great deal of passion and feeling the issue of what they regard as the truly absurd Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. That report was crazy, crackpot, damaging, slipshod and quite simply the worst piece of official documentation presented for many a long year. The idea that the fundamental problem affecting the milk market is excessive producer power driving up the milk price is so far at variance with the reality that farmers are having to experience that it beggars belief that anyone could have put it down on paper.
I recognise the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not simply accept that report, but felt the need to reflect on it. However, the outcome has been that we are moving towards a situation in which Milk Marque is breaking itself into three. As the Minister will recognise, the Secretary of State said in his evidence to the Select Committee that that was highly likely to lead to a further fall in the farmgate price of milk, which will only make the problems that we are talking about today even worse. Again, I accept that that is not direct Government responsibility, but that report was extremely damaging and should have been binned, rather than, in some ways, being implemented.
We have to move on to deal with the world as it is, rather than the world as it might have been. I should be interested in anything that the Minister has to say, particularly on a point that the Agriculture Minister himself discussed with my constituents and others today: the possibility of finding some means of bringing together—perhaps in a forum, which, in its report, the Select Committee itself mentioned—all the players in the dairy industry, perhaps with the Government playing an enabling role, so that all the parties sit down and put aside the petty jealousies, back biting and spiteful fighting that has gone on for many years in the industry, and recognise that they have a collective interest. The dairy industry is a £3 billion industry, which is a significant part of the United Kingdom economy. Anything that the Government

481
can do positively to encourage co-operation and the recognition of common interests would be much welcomed by dairy farmers.
There is the issue of quotas. I do not want to detain the Minister long on that, but she will know that many dairy farmers feel that the deal that was done last year by the Government was not a great one for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom's quotas were frozen for six years, while Ireland—which produces about four times its consumption requirement—received additional quotas.
Dairy farmers raised another issue and—although there are perhaps only a limited number of spheres in which the Government could provide immediate assistance—they asked me specifically to press the Minister on it: the issue of increasing the price in the over-30-month scheme, and reconsideration of phasing out the calf-processing aid scheme. We know that none of those actions is likely to provide a panacea, but it would be helpful if the Minister could say whether the Government are prepared at least to consider them.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating this debate, which is of key interest to my constituents in Eddisbury—which, as the Minister will well know, shares with North Shropshire the honour of being Europe's largest milk field. I have not only large dairy farmers, but small dairy farmers. However, the economies of scale that one would expect to be a differentiating factor between them simply no longer exist. That is a major plight that is affecting all dairy farmers.
In addition to sharing the sentiments expressed about south Cumbria—to which I have a fond attachment—I should like to mention that, when I met my constituents at today's lobby, there was a great sense of dismay about the absence of Government support for immediate action on the Food Labelling Bill, which the Minister and I had a discussion on just over a week ago, in this very place. It is yet another matter on which Government action really must be focused.
Mr. Collins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, I strongly support his proposed legislation and I hope that the Government think again on that.
As the Minister will recognise, perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the agricultural situation is that even a year ago—certainly two years ago—dairy farmers and farmers in any agricultural sector would say that things were grim, but in six months' time they would be better. They said that six months after six months until six or nine months ago. As the Minister will probably acknowledge, sadly, farmers are no longer saying that—they have endured so many knocks, so many hopes have been dashed, and so many chances that there was light at the end of the tunnel have proved fruitless.
An entire generation of farmers believe that they will be the last. The average age of farmers is something like 57. Many fewer farmers' sons and daughters expect to follow their parents into farming than was the case before. As a result, many farmers who are still in business do not expect to hand over to the next generation, something that has been a great incentive to invest and produce for the future, but are simply carrying on, waiting for the opportunity to get out of the industry and retire. That is very sad.
482
It is allied to the point that was made to me by Matthew Robinson, one of my constituents who came down to London for the demonstration earlier today, that they way in which the financial constraints are biting is hitting the new, younger, possibly more technologically sophisticated and more efficient farmers who are at the start of their careers, have heavy borrowings and are perhaps most vulnerable to a financial shock. Older farmers, who may have paid off their mortgages and loans, are more likely to keep going for a few more years, hoping that things will get better, because they will have built up some fat on which they can depend.
The Select Committee stated at paragraph 43 of its report:
sadly, there are likely to be more casualties before any real recovery is felt.
We should not kid ourselves that only the less efficient, older producers will be forced out by the present circumstances. It may well be the next generation who are knocked out and, if we are not careful, the industry will have no future at all.
My final point relates to the nature of farming in my constituency. I represent a large chunk of the lake district. The Minister will recognise that a large number of the farmers there—both dairy and otherwise—are hill farmers. Consequently, they are on the margin of the margin. In many cases, the dairy part of their farming was the diversification strategy, alongside sheep. Now they find that the sheep market and the dairy market are down. Some of them depend on farming incomes of only £2,000 or £3,000. Many of them are on family credit and are really at the margin of viability.
Paragraph 44 of the Select Committee report specifically addressed the fact that those small family farms are important to the industry because of what they bring to the environment, the social life of the area and rural communities. It stated:
The benefits currently provided by small and remote dairy farms can only be retained in the prevailing circumstances by a Government policy which recognises the environmental and social rationale for assisting them … We recommend that the Government commission research into the implications for the rural economy and the environment of further structural change in the dairy sector. We further recommend that the Government identify areas where small farms are at risk as priority areas for help under rural development measures.
I hope that the Minister will say something about that. There is a general problem across the board for the dairy sector, particularly in my part of the world, where the only significant alternative employment is in tourism. Frankly, tourists come to the lake district to see not blasted heath and wilderness but a man-made landscape. Without the small dairy farmers, we will not have that landscape and the pit prop of the whole underpinning of the economy in large tracts of Cumbria and elsewhere will be knocked away.
Inevitably, it is not possible in such a short debate to raise all the problems facing the industry, but I hope that the Minister will say that the Government recognise the scale of the problem, that they accept that there should be a strategy to keep a significant dairy industry viable and that they will address specifically, perhaps in the context of the Prime Minister's farming summit on 30 March, the need to provide targeted assistance for the dairy industry and to help small dairy producers in particular.
2.35 am
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on securing this debate. I would have wished him better fortune in the timing, as it is an important subject and it is a pity to discuss it at such a late hour; but it is timely in that it is taking place on the day when dairy farmers have reached London in their campaign to increase public awareness of their serious plight. I am conscious that the march started in the hon. Gentleman's region, the north-west, in Carlisle, so it is suitable for him to have introduced the subject.
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his willingness to meet members of the delegation today and to engage in discussions with them, examining the very difficult issues that face the dairy sector. The industry is important nationally. It is the largest and arguably most economically important of all the agricultural sectors.
The industry is also important regionally, as the hon. Gentleman said. He represents a constituency in which dairying is very important. I understand that Cumbria has the second largest breeding herd, exceeded only by Devon's. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) also referred to the importance of the industry in his area.
I share something in common with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, as one branch of my family comes from his constituency—and they were farming folk.
We recognise the severity of the problems. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a variety of factors in the current situation. The most dramatic aspect is the fall in the price of milk, which has several causes. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that milk is less expensive than bottled water. One might also say that it is less expensive than some not very healthy fizzy drinks that we have been encouraged to drink in preference to milk. Indeed, we dealt with that subject in a Standing Committee last week, and at least one Conservative Front Bencher here tonight was there then.
The price has fallen especially dramatically in the United Kingdom. Prices are low in some other European countries, but there are some particularly British aspects to the crisis. Obviously, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, the strength of sterling against the euro is an important factor affecting agriculture and the dairy industry in two ways: not only the familiar problem of the high price of exports but the fact that the European Union support price is set in euros and its value falls as sterling appreciates. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that represents the market of last resort and provides a floor in the commercial market. That is an important factor, but at the same time the level of sterling is an incentive for imports into the UK and makes for problems with exports. It certainly adds very much to the competitive pressures on our producers.
I was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman also mentioned several issues concerning the marketing of milk. We know that the main deregulation took place in 1994, and at that time everyone in the industry was in a new and perhaps alarming situation. However, the second stage has involved the results of last year's Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into the marketing of
484
milk. That is an issue that the Agriculture Committee considered closely in its recent report on the marketing of milk, and I welcome that. In this short debate, it is not possible to go into all the different aspects of that report.
Despite the difficulties and frustrations involved in the whole process, I welcome the fact that Milk Marque chose to act positively and decisively to meet some of the criticisms in the MMC report. The successor organisations are in the process of getting up and running. Obviously, we want them to bring a new dynamism to the market and to have a positive effect on returns, even if only in the medium term, rather than the negative effect that many people worry will result.
Mr. Collins: The Minister will know that one of the issues for the successor bodies to Milk Marque is whether they will be allowed to go into processing. That is dependent on a decision that rests with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who in turn has to wait for advice from the Director General of Fair Trading. The Select Committee was told that that would arrive some time near Easter. Does the Minister have any further information on an issue about which the dairy industry is waiting desperately to hear?
Ms Quin: I understand the anxiety of the dairy industry and dairy farmers about that matter, but the hon. Gentleman pre-empted my reply. The timetable is as he describes, and I cannot add anything to that this evening.
Government action has taken place on several fronts, despite the limitations on the Government, especially in terms of price setting and other forms of intervention. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognised those limitations. Some issues have had an effect on the dairy sector. When I first became an Agriculture Minister, dairy and cattle farmers were very worried about the impending introduction of cattle passports. We have alleviated that burden by deferring payment for the passports for two and a half years, and that will save a significant amount of money.
We have also undertaken to provide help to make it possible to have a generic promotion campaign for milk. That is important, because it is a long time since we have had such a campaign. All of us will remember the effectiveness of campaigns such as "Drinka pinta milka day", the bottles of milk dancing on to the doorstep and "Milk has gotta lotta bottle". They had an effect. I do not underestimate the potential of that, and I am glad that the processing side of the industry is committed to matching the sum raised by producers, so that a sizeable promotional campaign can be mounted. Clearly, we shall monitor that closely to see how effective it is, but Ministers are very committed to a project that has been welcomed by hon. Members of all parties.
The Government also support the continuation of European Union school milk scheme. That has been under threat, as the European Commission is looking to reduce its budget in all sorts of ways. The EU school milk subsidy came in for especially close scrutiny. My right hon. Friend the Minister spoke strongly about the matter in the Agriculture Council and received support from other Ministers. The plans to abandon the subsidy have

485
been shelved for the moment, although we must remain vigilant and continue to build alliances with other countries to try and ensure that the scheme can survive.
The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the importance of trying to get people in the dairy food chain together, and we agree. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the food chain initiative that my right hon. Friend the Minister set in motion. It involves senior figures from MAFF, the National Farmers Union, the Food and Drink Federation and various retail groups, and its report showed that it is conscious of the importance of trying to get the various parts of the food chain working together.
The tensions and difficulties that exist between sectors were very well documented in the report from the Agriculture Committee. We shall study that report's recommendations in detail, but we also want to build on the momentum of the food chain initiative to achieve greater understanding of the pressures and constraints on each part of the food chain.
It is not true that there is no passing on of lower prices at the retail end, but there is a time lag in what is a slow and modest process, and I understand the frustrations of farmers who suffer as a result.
The investigation by the Competition Commission is also relevant and, when the elements of the food chain appear not to be co-operating, the commission is available to help. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are keen to make progress on both aspects of the food chain.
486
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the rural development regulation, and about how that might relate to small dairy farms. We hope that the various measures announced last December by my right hon. Friend the Minister as part of the rural development regulation and its implementation in this country will help the dairy sector.
I was pleased that the recent round of marketing awards under the agricultural marketing development scheme went to some innovative projects from the dairy sector. That justifies the way in which we have built on the agricultural development scheme in the rural development regulation to address some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned quotas. Our long-term approach in the European Union is for an orderly end to the milk quota system. We believe that the British dairy industry can compete in Europe. It has several natural advantages, such as good-quality pasture, and it has a good record with regard to quality standards.
However, many of the recommendations on marketing of product in the Select Committee report are well worth considering. I was also interested to hear some of the comments on the radio this morning from the president of the NFU. He spoke of the need for better organisation in the industry—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at ten minutes to Three o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Fair Employment (Northern Ireland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
9.30 am
Mr. Peter Brooke: It gives me great pleasure to open the debate on the fourth report of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland of the previous Session. The report, which is entitled "The Operation of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989: Ten Years On", is based on evidence taken by the Select Committee between December 1998 and May 1999. The Committee was ably advised in its inquiry by Dr. Christopher McCrudden, then reader in law at Oxford university and a fellow of Lincoln college, Oxford. Dr. McCrudden has since been elevated by the university to the chair of human rights law and I congratulate him on that well-deserved promotion. The Committee was congratulated on the thoroughness of its report by the Committee on Administration of Justice, but we were reminded that follow-ups would be desirable. This debate affords an opportunity for such a follow-up.
The centrality to the difficulties in Northern Ireland of discrimination in general and in employment in particular has been recognised for many years. The first fair employment legislation for Northern Ireland was enacted in 1976. It was significantly amended and strengthened in the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. I was in the Commons during the concluding stages of the Act's passage, which occurred during the curious week in July 1989 when I had been appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland but had not yet taken office. The Act created the Fair Employment Commission. During its passage, the Government committed themselves to review its operation and such policy in general within five years of its enactment. The independent Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, to which the task of the review was ultimately entrusted, recommended substantial changes in a report published in June 1997.
The Government set out their response in the "Partnership for Equality" White Paper, which was published in March 1998, and accepted some of the recommendations. However, they went further and proposed the merger of the four existing equality bodies, which included the Fair Employment Commission, into a single equality commission. The White Paper triggered the Committee's inquiry, although, upon its renewal in July 1997, the Committee had already discussed the possibility of such an inquiry and deferred it until we could pass the verdict of a decade on the working of the 1989 Act.
The Belfast agreement gave added impetus to the further reform of fair employment legislation as it included a Government commitment to make rapid progress with measures for employment equality. The
48WH
Northern Ireland Act 1998, which implemented the Belfast agreement, accomplished several aims in the broader equality field, including the merger of the four equality bodies and the imposition of a duty on public sector bodies to ensure that each paid due regard to the need to ensure equality of opportunity between a wide range of groups in the operation of its functions. Those measures were followed in December of that year by the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which implemented many of the White Paper's proposals and repealed and re-enacted the remaining provisions of the 1976 and 1989 Acts. As a result, all the fair employment law is now contained in a single piece of legislation.
Our inquiry was therefore undertaken at a time of considerable change in Northern Ireland's equality framework. In particular, there was major institutional change. The Equality Commission assumed the functions of the Fair Employment Commission, and the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order extended both the scope of the legislation and the number of employers covered by it. Obviously, the Committee had little or no chance to see before we reported how the new measures were working in practice. The Equality Commission had not then even been appointed.
The Committee's report contained more than 30 principal conclusions and recommendations on a wide range of matters, including the unemployment differential—a touchstone, to many people, of the extent of discrimination in Northern Ireland against the Catholic community, the cost burden on employers of fair employment legislation and the implications both of merging four specialist equality commissions into one multi-functional Equality Commission and of the new equality duty on public authorities set out in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. Other conclusions and recommendations related to the institutional arrangements for handling equality within government, the potential contribution of contract compliance and whether existing affirmative action exceptions should be broadened.
The Government gave a broadly welcoming response to the report in October 1999, underscoring the Select Committee's comments on the importance of equality of opportunity issues to the peace process and to Northern Ireland's future. As five months have elapsed since that response, I hope that the Under-Secretary will give hon. Members an idea of the progress that has since been made in this vital matter and offer an initial assessment of how the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order is working.
The Government's response prompts me to raise several points. First, what progress can the Under-Secretary report on reducing the backlog of live industrial tribunal and fair employment tribunal cases? The response described a welcome increase in manpower and physical resources, and I hope that there has been a significant reduction in cases from the July 1999 figures.
Secondly, is the Equality Commission satisfied that it is adequately resourced? The Minister will recall that the equality working group concluded that an additional £525,000 of public money would be necessary. How

49WH
much extra money have the Government made available to the commission this financial year, and what further resources will be provided next year?
Thirdly, the Committee sought an early announcement about the public authorities to be designated under section 75(3) of the Northern Ireland Act and the response promised an order last autumn. As far as I am aware, no such order has been made. What caused the delay, and when is the order expected?
Mr. John M. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend enlarge slightly on the curious lack of decisions by the Secretary of State defining the bodies that must comply with section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act? Does he, like me, recognise that the Equality Commission is particularly exercised about that?
Mr. Brooke: That is the nub and substance of my question to the Under-Secretary.
When does the Secretary of State expect to approve the draft guidelines on the form and content of public authorities' equality schemes, proposed by the Equality Commission some time ago? The Minister will recall that public bodies are under a statutory duty to submit their equality schemes to the commission by 30 June.
Fourthly, the Government's response to our recommendation in paragraph 105 on public procurement was ambiguous. Will the Under-Secretary enlarge on that somewhat elliptical response, which included the words "in due course", and explain what arrangements will be made to ensure proper assessment of procurement policies under the equality duty?
Fifthly, the response stated that the Government would review progress on the promotion of fair participation in the senior civil service and identification of further measures to help the Northern Ireland civil service at senior levels to become more representative of the Northern Ireland community as a whole. It stated that
the remit and conduct of the review is under consideration and will be announced shortly.
What progress has been made, and when can the announcement be expected? I ask that in the context of a response that was given last October.
Sixthly, interwoven questions arise from our recommendations in paragraphs 122 and 123. Before the Executive was suspended, it was envisaged that changes would be made to the equality unit in the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Will those changes be implemented? What will be the staffing arrangements at higher and lower levels? Will the unit be headed by a deputy secretary?
In a linked question, the Government said that appropriate structures would be established to ensure that the responsibilities of the Secretary of State would continue to be performed under devolution, but no equality unit has been created in the Northern Ireland Office. During suspension, will the Secretary of State employ the equality unit of the Northern Ireland Executive or his own Northern Ireland Office civil servants? What is the Minister's reaction to the observation that the lack of an equality unit in the
50WH
Northern Ireland Office has caused the delay in obtaining the Secretary of State's approval of the designation order and the draft guidelines—a matter on which my hon. Friend intervened?
Finally, in this series of questions, what progress has been made in developing a memorandum of understanding between the Equality Commission and the NI Human Rights Commission to minimise the impact of the possible overlap of their respective jurisdictions?
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the evidence of witnesses clearly gave the impression that unlawful employment discrimination on political and religious grounds had declined significantly? Has there, or has there not, been a decline? We should not, 10 years on, be left perceiving that there has been a decline.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is true that we received a great deal of evidence on the beneficial effects of the 1989 Act. I hope that those benefits continue. During our review of the working of the Act, we examined the issues in the current context. That is the basis of my questions to the Under-Secretary. It would be helpful if he mentioned the achievements of the 1989 Act.
The Northern Ireland Act set out the allocation of responsibility between Westminster and Belfast on equality issues. The substantive provisions were transferred matters. The Secretary of State retained responsibility for the statutory equality duty as it affects the public sector and for the Equality Commission. I hope that the Minister will assure us that progress will not be slowed by the suspension of the Executive.
As this is a short debate, I have highlighted only a few matters raised in the Select Committee's report. Northern Ireland has some of the most advanced anti-discrimination legislation in Europe, if not the world. The Government are committed to reviewing the legislation and related policies by 2005, which the Select Committee welcomes. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) implied, aspects of the legislation remain controversial, but I am pleased to report that the Select Committee's opinion was unanimous. I commend the report.
9.44 am
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Unlawful discrimination on the grounds of religious and political opinion seems to have declined in the Province. In "Employment Equality: Building for the Future", the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights examined the monitoring data that the Fair Employment Commission published annually. It assessed the impact of the 1989 Act on the employed work force.
Analysis of appointments by larger firms shows that the Catholic share of applicants has increased in the public and private sectors among men and women. The statistics seem to show a good match between the proportion of Catholic applicants and appointees, but with minor variations. Although SACHR concluded that neither community was experiencing systematic

51WH
discrimination at the point of selection, there have, without doubt, been individual cases of discrimination against Catholics and Protestants. However, emphasis should be placed on the word "systematic", and it is mainly in that respect that improvements have occurred.
There seems to have been a reduction in the under-representation in employment. The Fair Employment Commission's statistics show that the overall Catholic share of employment rose by 4.3 per cent. between 1990 and 1998. The statistics show an under-representation of Catholic males, but an increasingly small under-representation of Catholic females. However, the Catholic share has risen in every occupational group since 1990. Catholic representation in the public sector increased by 3.4 per cent. in the same period.
In security-related occupations, however, only 8.4 per cent. were Catholic in 1998—a 1 per cent. increase since 1990. Security-related occupations still lag far behind. The Patten report on policing recognised the need to attract more Catholics into the service. That is not a matter for us to debate today, but we should recognise that it is a serious problem that must be resolved. The private sector has seen a significant increase in the proportion of Catholics in employment. The Catholic share for males increased by 4.7 per cent. between 1990 and 1998, and for females by 4.5 per cent.
Those statistics are important, as they suggest that things are improving in Northern Ireland. They also demonstrate consistent progress in all walks of life for men and women. Despite that, however, there is still some way to go.
Unemployment occurs for many different reasons, but all those affected are socially disadvantaged and they deserve the assistance and encouragement of Government agencies to help them to find productive work. The unemployment differential between Catholics and Protestants is still significant, and the rate for Catholic men is still twice that for Protestants. That is not necessarily the direct consequence of discrimination; nevertheless, something must be done. I believe that that is partly the result of fair employment not occurring across the full gamut of occupations and partly the result of employment practices not being equitable throughout the community.
It is apparent that the persistence of the unemployment differential is not a valid indicator of the success or otherwise of fair employment legislation. We cannot say that the legislation has failed simply because those differentials exist. However, we must recognise that, although progress is being made, it will be a long haul to achieve what we want.
Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the Fair Employment Commission's assessment that there has been a sea change in attitude to fair employment within the Protestant and Roman Catholic communities? In fact, the greatest factors that have influenced the opportunities available for those under-represented in employment have been the extent of recent under-investment and the significant number of new jobs created as a result of the new deal in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The attitudes that tend to support discrimination are unsustainable if the primary dynamic is economic. The
52WH
importance of inward investment cannot be overstated because, as Northern Ireland returns to normality, so it needs to recruit the best people. Recruiting the best people tends to mitigate the discrimination that we have seen. Indeed, it is that attitude that has allowed employment legislation to work. Overall, it is clear that the legislation has made an important contribution to improving fairness in employment in Northern Ireland, even if the precise extent of that contribution cannot accurately be determined.
Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act provides that each public authority shall have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. I should like to ask the Minister a few questions, to which I hope he will be able to reply when he responds to the debate. First, do the Government have any plans to extend fair employment legislation specifically to monitor equality of opportunity among the groups mentioned in section 75 of that Act? Specifically, do the Government intend to monitor equality of opportunity between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status and sexual orientation? It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether the Government intend to monitor equality of opportunity between men and women, between persons with and without disability and between persons with and without dependants. We all recognise that Northern Ireland has the potential to be a role model for equality of opportunity. It would be a wasted opportunity not to monitor the impact of the legislation way beyond the more traditional divides that probably prompted the legislation in the first place.
Secondly, the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the operation of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act said:
We consider that the community differences in unemployment should remain an appropriate and important issue of concern for Government.
What progress has been made in setting targets for the reduction of those community differentials? It might be useful to set specific staging-post targets towards the longer-term goal of entirely eliminating those differentials.
Thirdly, can the Government outline the timetable for circulating the final guidelines on equality? There has already been some delay, which I would not want to be extended. Are the Government taking steps to ensure that the schemes will be sufficiently detailed and concrete to serve their purpose, because vague plans are worse than no plans at all? The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) mentioned the civil service, where it seems that an issue still remains, but that is an area in which the Government can make a more direct intervention. What progress has been made in the review of senior Northern Ireland civil service appointments, given that a profound differential still exists? I accept that part of the differential is historic and will take time to equalise as people percolate through the system.
The report also stated:
We recommend that, in order to prevent conflicts of interests arising, the Secretary of State should establish her own Equality Unit within the Northern Ireland Office, in part to advise her on the exercise of these functions, and in part to co-ordinate the equality schemes of UK Departments and public authorities designated by her under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

53WH
What measures have been introduced to ensure effective quality of advice to the Secretary of State with the creation of an equality unit within the Northern Ireland Office?
The fact that we are having this debate and that there is some reasonably good news on the subject should give us grounds for optimism. Therefore, I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to welcome the momentum that has already been generated, thanks to the legislation, and ensure that, in terms of attitudes, the civil service acts as a role model for the public and private sectors it is efforts to eliminate what has perhaps been a slightly neglected issue, and which has unquestionably been a source of great irritation of certain sectors of the Northern Irish community.
9.54 am
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I compliment the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). I am a peripatetic constituent of the right hon. Gentleman—not that I ever vote for him, as I am sure he appreciates.
This is a fine report, which makes many significant recommendations. Joan Harbison and her excellent team at the Equality Commission play an important role in such matters, but—as I have said to Ministers before—I am anxious that the body's staffing may not be adequate. I, too, think that the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 has worked well, and those of us on this side of the water have much to learn from it. However, there are still problems, as has been acknowledged.
Employment practices in Northern Ireland are increasingly anti-discriminatory. Discrimination does still exist, some of which is structural. For example, as the report mentions, there are problems in the civil service and with the delay in the designation order, which I am sure the Minister is addressing.
Mr. Beggs: The hon. Gentleman's observations on senior staffing levels in the civil service may be a little out of date. The establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly and 10 new Departments has led to the creation of new posts, affording the first opportunity in almost a lifetime to ensure a greater spread of representation at a senior level.
Dr. Godman: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman praising the Assembly. As he knows, I was there on the day of the farmers' lobby and saw it at work. Indeed, at the conclusion of the day's business, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) said to me, "Norman, you have seen for yourself that this place works." Indeed, it does. I look forward to it being reinstated soon so that the fair employment practices mentioned by the hon. Gentleman may be re-established.
The hon. Gentleman is right: the Assembly provides an opportunity for everyone in Northern Ireland who recruits and trains employees to be as fair as possible in their gatekeeping work. I should be delighted to learn that discrimination in the 10 new Departments is being given the boot and kicked out of the door. It is for the
54WH
Minister to provide such an assurance; it is not humble—or perhaps, not so humble—for a Back Bencher such as myself.
Discrimination still exists, especially in relation to the long-term employed. What is being done to help such people? On page xxxvi of the report, the Select Committee notes
the continuing under-representation of Roman Catholics in the Senior Civil Service.
Is that still the case? If so, what are the Minister and the Secretary of State doing about it?
What is being done to help the over-50s back into employment? They are at a particular disadvantage in finding decent work with good terms and conditions. How many civil servants are aged over 50? What proportion of the civil service do they represent? Do they hold senior positions? I am getting perilously close to my retirement, having hit 60, but I am not looking for a job with the Under-Secretary, if he will forgive me for saying so. The important point is that many people aged over 50 to whom I have spoken in Northern Ireland, as in Scotland and elsewhere, feel that they have been discarded from the labour market. The Minister must devote serious resources to finding work for the long-term unemployed, especially those aged over 50.
I shall respond to another comment made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs). The other day, while at the Royal Ulster Constabulary Markets division, I spoke to Sergeant Stephen Jones, who won the good community policing award last year for the remarkable work that he does in a nationalist area—albeit, a small one—and a commercial area. I told him and the others who were at the meeting that I had stayed at the Hilton the night before and asked them how many people from the Markets area had found work at the Hilton or elsewhere in that area. Some of those people mentioned the new call centre that is being built on the old gasworks site, which will provide 500 jobs. I have no doubt that, following the good practices under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act and the recommendations of the fine Select Committee report, the employer will ensure that equality rules the day in recruiting those 500 employees, but I hope that older people, as well as young people, will be taken on.
Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, instead of the Industrial Development Board devoting much of its resources to supporting training in companies that have decided to move to Northern Ireland, serious consideration should be given to targeting the unemployed, of whatever age group, and making available specific funds to ensure that those people have the skills that will enable them to apply successfully for jobs in call centres or other targeted sectors of employment?
Dr. Godman: I find myself in the curious position of constantly agreeing with the hon. Gentleman today. Employment in call centres is important, but we must train youngsters and others so that they can take on highly skilled work in Northern Ireland. The 1989 Act and the recommendations in the report will encourage many firms to set up in Northern Ireland. I do not want all such companies to go to Northern Ireland; I should like some of them to come to Greenock. However, they will be encouraged by the concerns that the right hon.

55WH
Member for Cities of London and Westminster and his colleagues have shown about the Act, which was passed, I seem to recall, by a Conservative Government.
We must prepare people on an absolutely fair and utterly anti-sectarian basis for employment, with good terms and conditions. Those to whom I spoke in the Markets area the other day had two overriding concerns: to live in decent, affordable houses, which many do—new kitchens, for example, are being installed—and to have a decent job. It goes without saying that people want to live in a peaceful community, but they want access to the labour market too.
Mr. John M. Taylor: A moment or two ago, the hon. Gentleman permitted himself an aside, saying that he thought that the legislation under review was passed by a Conservative Government. I confirm that it was; at that time, I was the Government Whip responsible for conducting the measure through the House.
Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is a delightful fellow, but, he is not known for his modesty. I made the aside because I thought that he might take the bait, or, as he is a fly fisherman, the fly. The measure is good legislation, as Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland have told me. The Under-Secretary must re-examine the policy on targeting of social needs. I know that it is under consultation, but it should not be a blunt instrument; it must be sharp enough to get at the problems that some still believe cannot be eradicated.
I want briefly to refer to highly skilled jobs at Harland and Wolff. A couple of my Catholic constituents—one, Bart Monaghan, a good friend of mine, was a shop steward—were sent to work in Harland and Wolff. Bart was advised to learn the words of "The Sash" and be able to sing it before he went to Belfast. In those days, a Catholic had enormous difficulty finding work in Harland and Wolff, no matter how highly skilled he might have been back on the Clyde, although that has now changed.
It is essential that the Government and the Departments involved, including the Ministry of Defence, ensure that the shipyard remains open. I was a shipyard worker, although I doubt that I would get a job in my trade of shipwright now. I want lots of orders to go to the Clyde, but orders from the Ministry of Defence and others can be shared with Harland and Wolff. Every vessel that has gone down its slipway is a testimony to that yard's find tradition and superb skills, which must be maintained.
The Minister must carefully consider the report and what the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said about it, especially the matters relating to the Equality Commission. The targeting of social need must be a sharp weapon to deal with the problems. The Minister must do all that he can to ensure that Harland and Wolff remains in business. He must keep up the good fight against discrimination, which still means a lousy life for many Catholics in Northern Ireland.
10.9 am
Mr. Harry Barnes: As I am a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs it would be immodest of me to praise the report,
56WH
but I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) did so. However, I can praise the work done by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). The 1999 issue of Irish Political Studies recognises fully the right hon. Gentleman's role on that Committee. I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Political Studies Association of Ireland.
Growing and full employment help to tackle bias and unfairness in employment. Full employment at least reduces the scope for unfairness in employment to the level of discussing promotion and who gets which jobs. That is one aspect of the problem of unfairness in job distribution in Northern Ireland.
Mr. John M. Taylor: I follow the hon. Gentleman's line of argument entirely sympathetically. Will he join me in noting that unemployment in Northern Ireland has halved in the past 10 years?
Mr. Barnes: I was about to point to the success of the new deal, which has already been mentioned. The Select Committee is examining the question of inward investment, which is important for job creation in the Province. Such developments help to tackle some of the problems of unfairness in employment.
I have always thought that full and fair employment is both a cause and a consequence of developments towards peace in Northern Ireland. It is easier to achieve the objectives of the peace agreement in a setting of full employment. Peace itself helps to achieve that where it is missing. It is not easy to distinguish which element needs to be more fully discussed, but the two issues—the cause of peace and the consequences of it—seem vastly important. Our discussion is of matters that are of significance to people's daily lives, and fairness between groups of people, but we are also discussing the peace process and the possibilities within it. We were right on two grounds to involve ourselves in this investigation.
In the modern world, employment often requires people to be highly mobile. Sometimes jobs are available only for specific periods, after which people have to move and look elsewhere. That is a bigger problem in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. People in the Province are now more divided into separate Catholic and Protestant communities than at any time in their history. As a consequence of the troubles, people have been moved from areas and have gone to the communities where they feel safest. That obviously creates difficulties for the establishment of fair employment. Economic developments will take place more readily in some areas than in others. That creates a problem because people need to move around and into new areas, so it is important to move away from placing people in areas that become almost ghettoes.
Mr. Beggs: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although civil unrest has existed in Northern Ireland for 30 years, unrest has never reached the workplace, and that Northern Ireland's record will show that, compared with other regions of the United Kingdom, less time was lost in industry and commerce because of

57WH
industrial disputes? That shows how well people from each community worked together in the workplace to ensure each other's prosperity.
Mr. Barnes: The tensions within Northern Ireland were reflected in the working communities, but the Northern Ireland trade union movement always directed itself to tackling that problem, and always sought reconciliation and agreement between groups rather than play either card or fly the flag of a united Ireland or of the United Kingdom. It organised its own campaigns against violence and intimidation. It saw that that attitude among the work force could reach out into home and community life, and we should fully recognise the importance of that.
It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) took part in the inquiry, although he is now busy with other activities within the London area. However, in our first question and answer session, my hon. Friend said:
I was one of those who felt that the 1989 Act was just a sop to try and buy up the campaign for the MacBride principles. In the event, I am clearly very glad to see it has turned out to be much more effective than many of us feared.
The significance of the legislation was recognised by someone on the Committee whose political views could be said to be close to the aspirations of republicanism and to some of the Catholic community's ideals for a united Ireland. Much propaganda had been associated with the MacBride principles, but it was recognised that something significant had been achieved, and that was reflected in the evidence provided to us and in the report.
Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: If the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) had been living in Northern Ireland, does the hon. Gentleman think that he would have had a case against the Labour party's selection procedures under the fair employment legislation?
Mr. Barnes: I might have many things to say about that, but on another occasion. On this occasion, what I say will remain entirely relevant to the matter in hand.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Barnes: The Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland supplied us with evidence, which produced the response from the hon. Member for Brent, East. It showed that between 1990 and 1997, Catholics employed in firms with 26 or more employees had risen from 33 per cent. to 36.9 per cent. If the non-denominational were excluded, the rise was from 34.9 per cent to 38.8 per cent. There was still a bias in view of the potential number of Catholic workers, but significant developments were clearly taking place.
Maldistribution is shown clearly in the statistics for 1997: 42.4 per cent. of Catholics were employed as plant and machine operators, but only 36.5 per cent. were employed in management and administration. The wider issue of who secures which jobs is still significant, and still needs to be properly investigated.
58WH
The Fair Employment Commission's statistics showed that some fluctuation had taken place and that Catholic employment in the public sector had barely increased between 1991 and 1995, although it was claimed that that was because various measures had previously been introduced that had helped to achieve an increase. In the private sector, some significant developments occurred between 1991 and 1996, although the number fell back in 1997.
As the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee said, the Equality Commission was established on 1 October 1999 to take over from the Fair Employment Commission, as a consequence of the peace agreement. It is important that we are updated on developments in order to ascertain whether the hopes that were placed in the Equality Commission to extend the work of the Fair Employment Commission have been fulfilled, or seem likely to be fulfilled, as the period involved is short.
Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a continuing vital role for the Equality Commission will be detailed monitoring? In the event of clear evidence of under-representation of one or other community in either the public or the private sector, we must ensure not only that the figures involved are reported, but that we are shown evidence of on-going monitoring to correct imbalances.
Mr. Barnes: I am sure that, given the work of the Fair Employment Commission and the work that will be done by the Equality Commission, such considerations will be to the fore.
I am worried that the Equality Commission has taken on rather more than it can handle, given its size, having assumed responsibility for gender, race and disability. Will those aspects work together? The commission has to work that way as a result of the Belfast agreement, and I do not complain about that, but I have always been worried about disability legislation in the United Kingdom. We have established a Disability Rights Commission in Britain, but disability is part of the Equality Commission's responsibility in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, a commitment has been made to full civil rights for disabled people. That has been reflected in the House and by all the political parties in Northern Ireland outside the House that I have contacted in the past, which favour such measures. The only body from which I have not received a response is Sinn Fein, which may be embarrassed that it has been in the disability-creating game for a time.
I hope that the Equality Commission's range of responsibilities will enliven its ability to tackle those areas, rather than detract from it. However, we must be careful that one aspect does not miss out at the cost of another.
The report shows that, given the massively difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland, some satisfactory advances have been made. It is a matter of prodding and pushing, and ensuring that we are not complacent and that objectives are delivered in line with agreed principles. What emerged from the contribution of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was that he wanted to pursue several detailed points, and although he did not disagree on the

59WH
principle or direction he wanted those points to be acted on. That is a correct role for a Chairman to play in ensuring that a Select Committee's work leads to responses from Government Departments.
10.24 am
Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. One of the conclusions in the report of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs related to the parliamentary scrutiny of fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland. The Committee felt that it was inadequate that such an important matter should have been dealt with by an order rather than primary legislation. It hoped that any review of and changes to the legislation would be dealt with by primary legislation, so that more adequate parliamentary scrutiny could be ensured.
The Ulster Unionist party clearly wants fair employment, but we feel that it must be created using the principle of merit. When the fair employment legislation was introduced in Northern Ireland, we were concerned that it would be a blunt instrument that would not properly and fairly tackle problems such as long-term unemployment. We have worked with the legislation and encouraged our constituents to use it when necessary. We have tried to improve it and the methodology that was used by fair employment tribunals and the former Fair Employment Commission.
We have adopted a positive approach to the legislation in seeking to deal with religious discrimination. It is important to recognise that that problem is not one-sided. There is evidence that both the main traditions in Northern Ireland are discriminated against. Some large employers have serious disparities between the levels of Roman Catholics and Protestants employed, and the register of companies monitored under the fair employment legislation shows that some of the worst cases involve under-employment of Protestants.
The problem is portrayed as one-sided because of the over-use of the unemployment differential, which is constantly mentioned as an example of discrimination in employment. That creates a wrong impression. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee concluded that the unemployment differential was not the only measure of the differences in unemployment between the two traditions.
Lately, we have seen the effect on the economy of Northern Ireland of changing global situations that do not discriminate against one community or the other. Global changes and difficulties in competition from the far east may lead to the closure of the Harland and Wolff shipyard. That will have a serious impact on the community in east Belfast. As the area has a large Protestant majority, it will disproportionately affect the Protestant community.
The recent decline in the textile industry has led to several factory closures in North Down, which have had a disproportionate impact on the Protestant community. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is principally due not to discrimination per se, but to economic and social factors that are influenced by matters far beyond the purview of Northern Ireland and by the fact that we have many multinational employers.
60WH
To argue that unemployment is caused by religious discrimination is to minimise the problems that exist in the affected areas.
Mr. Beggs: My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the threatened crisis if there is no direct intervention and Government support for the mainly Protestant work force of the Belfast shipyard. He also mentioned the employment losses in textiles in North Down, which again is a mainly Protestant area. For the sake of the balance that we both seek, does my hon. Friend agree that in the shirt factories of Londonderry, where more than 90 per cent. of the work force are Roman Catholic, cheap imports are forcing cuts and closures, and are having a damaging effect on employees?
Mr. Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right. I was about to make the point that the social trends and economic conditions that have given rise to recent closures and job losses are by no means restricted to the Protestant community. The impact on the textile industry in the west of the Province, particulary shirt manufacturing, has had a disproportionate effect on the Roman Catholic community there. Two thirds of the long-term unemployed are Roman Catholic: that is not acceptable. My party wants the problem of long-term unemployment to be addressed. Resources need to be targeted at areas with high long-term unemployment, regardless of the community's political colour, demography or religious balance. Long-term unemployment must be tackled, and the best way of doing that is to create employment by bringing jobs to such areas.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) referred to a friend who went to work in a Harland and Wolff shipyard who had to learn not only the words of "The Sash", but how to sing it—there is a difference between knowing the words and knowing how to sing it. The hon. Gentleman will be only too aware of Monklands council, close to his own constituency, where there were cases of religious discrimination. Religious discrimination is not exclusive to Northern Ireland. I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentlemant is arguing that it is a major factor, and nor am I denying that there is such religious discrimination in Northern Ireland, but it is important to place it in context.
Dr. Godman: Monklands is some distance from my constituency. Historically, the cane sugar refineries overwhelmingly employed Catholic employees. The campaign to keep Harland and Wolff open could learn a great deal from the campaign that was waged on the upper Clyde to keep the Govan shipyard open. I hope that there will be some interchange between the two.
Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman is right. Many sub-contractors working in the Belfast shipyard were previously employed in yards in Scotland and the north of England. I hope that we can combine our efforts to maintain employment in the Belfast shipyard, not only for the good of the employees who live in Belfast, but for those who live in other parts of the United Kingdom whose skills are being utilised in the Belfast shipyard. The retention of those skills is important to our economy.

61WH
I shall deal now with some aspects of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's report and the Government's response to it. I touched on the issue of long-term unemployment, and I urge the Minister not to believe that the employment differential is the only way in which to tackle the problem. Employers are worried about the growing cost of compliance. I welcome the Government's proposal to undertake research into compliance costs for the next review in 2005. Such an important matter cannot be ignored.
I welcome the moves taken by the Government to increase the number of part-time chairmen serving on the fair employment tribunals to double the number of lay members of those tribunals. It is frustrating for people to experience long delays before their cases are heard, and I hope that the Government's action will lead to a reduction in the backlog.
We expressed concern during the passage of the Northern Ireland Bill about the problem that may emerge if religious discrimination and related issues dominate the work of the Equality Commission. We hope that the valuable work on gender imbalance carried out by the Equal Opportunities Commission will continue, and that it will be enhanced by the Equality Commission.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) has referred previously to the problem of disability discrimination, and there is much work to be done in Northern Ireland on that. I hope that the issue will not be marginalised by the decision to bring it under the umbrella of the Equality Commission.
Although race relations is not a major problem in Northern Ireland, it must still be given its proper place in discussions. Age descrimination is an emerging factor not only in Northern Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom, and I hope that the Equality Commission will bear that in mind when allocating resources.
Reference has been made to appointments at senior levels within the Northern Ireland civil service. My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim rightly drew attention to the restructuring of Government Departments in Northern Ireland as a means of redressing the imbalance at senior levels in the civil service and providing an opportunity on the basis of merit for people from the Roman Catholic tradition to apply for senior positions.
Applications from the Roman Catholic community to the Royal Ulster Constabulary have increased considerably since the reinstatement of the IRA ceasefire. Recruitment is now at more than 20 per cent. We welcome that. It points to a clear link between intimidation of people from the Roman Catholic community who want to join the RUC and the number of Roman Catholics actually in the RUC. I hope that the continuation of the ceasefire will give more Roman Catholics the confidence to join the RUC. We welcome the fact that more are now being recruited.
Finally, I want to speak briefly about targeting social need, which recognises that a range of social factors contribute to long-term unemployment. It is important to consider the indices that are being applied, and the
62WH
use of local government wards to identify pockets of social need, because some areas and pockets of social deprivation are being missed under the targeting social need initiative. For instance, the Seymour Hill ward in my constituency is just outside the area covered by the making Belfast work initiative, and it sits alongside the electoral wards of Twinbrook and Poleglass, which attract assistance under the TSN initiative. High levels of social deprivation are found in the Seymour Hill ward, yet its people are not being assisted under TSN, unlike people in neighbouring wards. I hope that the Government will deal with that problem.
10.41 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): This has been a useful debate. It has given us the opportunity to review progress since the report was published, and we have had the chance to discuss some of the issues that are important to ensuring equality and fair employment in Northern Ireland.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). His involvement with Northern Ireland matters is long and distinguished. That service continues to great effect in his role as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee. In his opening speech, the right hon. Gentleman raised most of the critical issues to which we must now turn our minds.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) made a typically thoughtful speech, which raised some slightly different matters that need to be considered. His later remarks were about targeting social need, and he argued that we should revisit the methodology and the statistical base involved in TSN. I am certainly prepared to consider that matter with my officials. I may or may not agree with him on the subject, but it is important that we should give some attention to such constructive criticisms.
A number of issues on fair employment law were dealt with under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It is, of course, a transferred matter. At the time of devolution, we implemented a number of new provisions, some of which passed to the offices of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. One of the first substantive issues to come before the Assembly was an equality Bill that dealt with disability—an issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), with which he has long been associated. The Government deeply regret the circumstances that led to the suspension of the Assembly, and we hope that in the near future the devolved institutions can be restored.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster gave us a history of fair employment and equality legislation. It would be superfluous to go through that again. However, he raised an issue that is of great concern to the House and should be of great concern to everyone who takes an interest in the issues that have divided society in Northern Ireland for so long. If we are serious about getting things right in Northern Ireland, it is vital that we address issues such as equality and fair employment. The effects of not having policies to promote equality and fair employment are deeply corrosive. One need only to

63WH
consider the history of the past 30 or 40 years to see just how corrosive those effects are and to understand how people feel when they believe that they are being discriminated against. If we are not fair, especially in employment matters, that feeds the arguments of those who would take a completely different path from the democratic process that we believe is the right way forward for Northern Ireland.
I shall now deal with some of the specific points raised by right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said that community differences in unemployment should remain an important issue for the Government, which I fully accept. However, I should reiterate the Government's concern about the differential impact of unemployment in the two Northern Ireland communities. The latest data collected in 1998 suggest that the ratio of the proportion of male Catholics and Protestants unemployed is 2.3, and the comparable statistic for women is 1.4. People might hold different opinions about the current and historic factors that have created those differentials, some of which were referred to by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley. However, they are unacceptable and the Government are committed to their reduction. It is heartening that everyone who has spoken in the debate subscribes to that central tenet of Government policy, which is part of the solution to the problems that we are all eager to address.
In order to tackle the ugly scar of long-term unemployment, the Government have introduced several new initiatives, including the new deal and the new policy on targeting social need. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) raised an issue, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley, about those older members of the potential labour market who are unemployed. They will both be aware that the Government intend to introduce the new deal for the over-50s this year, and it is right that we should do that. I say that not only because I have recently passed the age of 50 myself, but because a significant proportion of people of that age in Northern Ireland and elsewhere still have a contribution to make and are still capable of supporting themselves and their families. They have been overlooked. It is especially important that we should tackle that serious problem in Northern Ireland through the new deal for the over-50s because that source of discrimination, or perceived discrimination, may hit hardest those groups who are least able to find their way back to remunerative employment without help.
The Equality Commission has a role in advising the Government on measures to reduce the religious imbalance among unemployed people, and on targets and timetables. I shall say a little more about that in a moment. We regret the fact that persistent long-term unemployment differentials exist, but progress has been made to close that gap, especially since the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 was introduced. It has not been closed entirely, but we are moving in the right direction. The data show that the gap stands at 1.3 percentage points compared with 3.4 percentage points in the 1991 census. That is an
64WH
important sign that we are making progress towards fair participation. It clearly demonstrates an achievement of fair employment legislation.
Dr. GodmanI am sure that the Minister will write to me if he cannot respond now, but what is the record of the Northern Ireland Office on the recruitment, selection and employment of people aged over 50?
Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right; I do not have those statistics, but I am reasonably confident, having looked around a room of civil servants at briefing meetings, that a fair number of staff at a senior level are over 50, although there are exceptions, as your gaze indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall write to my hon. Friend if I can obtain reliable statistics.
The Select Committee's report raised a number of issues on the Equality Commission, especially on appointments, resources and the need to avoid an overlap between its work and that of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The work of the Equality Commission is a priority. The Government will ensure that adequate resources are made available to enable it to carry out its work effectively. The commissions are discussing a memorandum of understanding and are liasing well on a range of matters in which they have a mutual interest. On appointments, I can add little to the Government's response. We do not consider that a review of the appropriateness of the Nolan-Peach procedures is necessary but we hope that with the return of the devolved responsibility that will be a matter for local consideration.
I pay tribute to the work of the commissions and their chief commissioners, Joan Harbinson and Brice Dickson. They were good and far-sighted appointments. They have worked well together and with the Government, sometimes explaining how we could improve our performance. I am confident that their productive relationship will continue.
In addition to the establishment of the Equality Commission, other important developments have taken place since the Select Committee produced its report. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act became operational on 1 January. By 30 June 2000, those public authorities to which it applies will have to submit equality schemes to the Equality Commission. Work is progressing on those, with a view to early public consultation. They will set a framework for the assessment of the impact of policies and for consultation.
The targeting social need policy has also developed. Draft action plans were published in November 1999, and consultation ended on 28 February. Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office are considering the proposals contained in approximately 150 responses. Finalised action plans will be put to Ministers. As in all consultation, we welcome constructive criticism and hope to respond positively where appropriate.
The equality agenda is progressing in line with the spirit of the Good Friday agreement and the 1998 White Paper "Partnership for Equality".
Mr. Brooke: I put six or seven questions to the Under-Secretary on behalf of the Select Committee, and I appreciate that he may write to me about those to which

65WH
he does not respond now. However, I should like to ask specifically about section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, and when he expects the Secretary of State to approve the draft guidelines put to him by the Equality Commission.
Mr. Howarth: I shall come to that. If there is time, I hope to deal with all the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
We are conscious of and concerned about the backlog of employment tribunal cases, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley readily conceded, resources for the tribunals office have been increased: more staff, panel members and tribunal rooms have been made available. The number of complaints has reduced—there were 666 in 1997 and 499 in 1999, which is a 25 per cent. reduction. It is important to resolve cases as quickly as possible and not to allow backlogs to build up.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the equality unit in the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Plans for its expansion, agreed by them, will go ahead. A deputy secretary will be appointed to head the unit, which, during suspension, will advise the Secretary of State on equality issues.
We are conscious of the issue of monitoring and targets, which was raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. We and those who advise us on the subject are trying to set realistic and achievable targets that are properly monitored.
As to contract compliance, it is important, as an objective of procurement, that the securing of value for money for the taxpayer should not be distorted by the
66WH
use of other purchasing objectives. However, in Northern Ireland, a formal feature of contracts is that contractors are bound to observe the equality and fair employment legislation. We are keeping a careful eye on developments in England, where, through the single regeneration budget, local authorities and central Government agencies, we are investigating how to use the appropriate leverage to create employment opportunities for local people. We may be able to learn from that.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire also asked about the Equality Commission and its resources. A further £425,000 is earmarked in the year. We are committed to ensuring that the resources necessary for it to carry out its duties will be made available.
As to designations, we consulted the Equality Commission before finalising our plans. Several suggestions from the commission are under consideration. Some hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, will appreciate that there were problematic issues with respect to further and higher education. I understand that some progress has been made on them. We hope to make the initial designation order shortly, but it is likely that a further and more comprehensive order will be made later in the year, after consultation.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire asked about anti-discrimination law. Perhaps we can debate that important matter on another occasion.
I have not been able to answer all the questions put to me, but I shall write to the hon. Members who asked them.

Conflict Prevention
11 am
Mr. Bowen Wells: The report of the International Development Committee on conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction lies at the heart of developmental issues. Many of us who have been in the field for a long time are aware of the need for stability. Lord Judd and I discussed that need at the beginning of this Parliament, and concluded that unless there are conditions of stability and an absence of conflict, development is not only impossible but will go backwards. People in unstable countries and areas of conflict would become much poorer, so conflict prevention lies at the heart of development debate and policy.
Conflict haunts the developing world and prevents a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of people in abject poverty by 2015, which is one of the main objectives of the Department for International Development, as set out in its White Paper. The prevention of conflict and post-conflict reconstruction therefore lie at the heart of the developmental objectives not only of the Department for International Development but of all the national and international institutions and non-governmental organisations engaged in this field, from the International Monetary Fund and the World bank to the smallest non-governmental organisation working in one country.
The report attempts to bring together all the factors and initiatives that can prevent conflict in the first place, or begin the task of reconstruction after conflict has ended. It cannot be simple coincidence that 20 of the poorest 34 countries of the world are either in the middle of armed conflict or have recently emerged from it. Conflict and poverty may not be recognised as causally connected, but they are very close companions. There is no better way to produce abject poverty than conflict. Many years of painstaking development work can be destroyed in a few months by an outbreak of hostilities that takes many more years to repair. Without political stability and security, development and poverty reduction cannot be achieved. It is for those reasons that the Committee embarked on its comprehensive review of conflict and the policies that would prevent it in the first place or help rehabilitation in the second.
The production of the report took the Committee many hours of painstaking work, combined with visits to Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya, and later to Kosovan refugees in Macedonia. In a departmental memorandum, the Secretary of State for International Development stated:
The damage done to development by violent conflict is enormous. To give but one example, the 15-year civil war in Mozambique destroyed 70 per cent. of the country's schools and cost the country an estimated US$15 billion. Today, Mozambique is officially designated as the world's poorest country.
As we know, the world's poorest country has suffered in recent weeks the most devastating floods around Maputo, where the Limpopo has overflowed its banks because of the unprecedented rainfall in the interior of the country and in Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia. It will therefore take many more years than we had anticipated to begin to enable Mozambique to climb out of its serious difficulties.
68WH
The Committee concluded that sustainable development alone provides genuine solutions to endemic conflict. It is difficult to isolate individual factors that bring about conflict, although the report covers the principal causes: poverty, inequality, economic shocks, such as the sudden drop in the price of coffee in Rwanda which affected two thirds of the country's farmers, human rights abuses, failures and abuses of political leaderships, arms proliferation and the exploitation of poor countries, especially in Africa, by both sides in the cold war.
I shall highlight the causes of which the Committee had first-hand experience. On our visit to Rwanda, the effects of over population were immediately apparent. Every hill and valley was totally exploited for farming. The hill tops were covered not with Rwanda's natural vegetation but with eucalyptus trees, presumably imported under the colonial Belgian administration. As a result, individual farmers had only a tiny piece of land. Rwanda's traditional land usage practice of dividing land equally between each family member meant that such people had unsustainable plots scattered over the village and surrounding areas. Families were therefore incapable of sustaining the most meagre life. Indeed, they could not sustain a recognisable standard of living.
Such circumstances are likely to lead to conflict and jealously, although that is not necessarily so. Mr. Chairman, out of desperation, people—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order, I hesitate to correct the hon. Gentleman. However, in this place, a Deputy Speaker presides over debate.
Mr. Wells: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not accustomed to speaking in this Chamber.
In Rwanda, land is precious and has been made infertile by over-cultivation. That leads to desperation, which erupts in unpredictable and un-African conflict. Generally speaking, Africans are accommodating and generous to their neighbours. They do not object to large numbers of refugees coming to live in their country, unlike people in the United Kingdom, who object strongly to only a few refugees taking up residence here.
Rwanda exploded into conflict between the Hutus and Tutsis and was invaded by Tutsi forces based in Uganda. The international community did not help to prevent that conflict and did not even take elementary precautions when it was obvious that conflict was inevitable. Rwanda was not the central focus of developmental assistance, although it needed such assistance to prevent the outbreak of conflict between the Tutsis and Hutus. We should do something about that, but we are failing to do so. However, I am sure that hon. Members will attest to the seriousness of the position.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I know that my hon. Friend will cover a great deal in our debate. The aftermath of the Rwandan conflict has moved west into the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire. Things have not improved since our report was published. The DRC is involved with Zimbabwe, whose helicopters were not available to support Mozambique because they were being used in a conflict in the DRC. We have seen only the tip of a dreadful, unending circle of conflict in Africa.
Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The conflict in Rwanda has spread into the DRC, because the Hutus are being looked after in camps run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, where they have been able to reconstruct their activities. That is another factor to be taken into account when we consider the role of international organisations in such situations.
The conflict that threatened Rwanda's stability led to attacks on DRC forces, and hence the DRC war, which brought in Angola, another very poor country, and Zimbabwe, whose economy has been brought to its knees. Thus the whole sorry tale continues. It is essential in the war against poverty to try to prevent conflict in Africa and to help with reconstruction after the conflict has subsided.
We must consider how to put in place secure governance, which includes an Executive and an impartial system of justice. To prevent the outbreak of conflict, the people who feel aggrieved must be confident that their problems will be sorted out in a just and objective manner that is accepted by the whole country. Such systems were absent in Rwanda and, at times, in Uganda. Uganda under President Muzeveni is having a renaissance because of the lack of conflict in most of the country. The Committee visited the north of Uganda, which borders the Sudan, where there is conflict. We witnessed the people of north Uganda in the most appalling conditions of poverty and fear because of the conflict overflowing from southern Sudan, where the forces of the Government of the north are constantly engaged in a war against John Garang. He, in turn, is taking teams of armed soldiers, many very young, into northern Uganda, capturing boys as young as 11 or 12, keeping them in conditions resembling slavery and teaching them to be soldiers, on threat of death. We met some of those young soldiers: the story was in their eyes. They were listless and in despair; many have committed suicide because of the hopelessness of their situation. They are the victims of conflict, and we must help them to go back to a reasonable life.
We cannot help development in northern Uganda while such activities are going on. I hope that the debate will bring the conflict to the top of the in-baskets at the Foreign Office and the offices of the international organisations. We have a responsibility to settle the war in the Sudan and north Uganda, where there is terrible starvation and horrendous offences against women and children happen every day. Unless we achieve a settlement, there can be no development in northern Uganda or the Sudan.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the world appears to have forgotten what is happening in the Sudan? The British Government should be making much more of an effort to resolve the conflict, which has been running intermittently for 30 years.
Mr. Wells: I hope that the hon. Lady's ambitions for the Sudan, which are the same as mine, will come to fruition. It has been forgotten, and I cannot understand
70WH
why. The country is well known to the British, and many friends of the British live there. We should be striving to find a solution in order to restart development in that country. It is a tragedy, and it requires the combined efforts of Saudi Arabia, the United States and its neighbours Kenya and Uganda, as well as Britain and the international organisations, to make progress there.
I cannot help thinking of another country in which I spent seven years of my adult life helping to further its development, which was going very well in the 1960s and early 1970s. It experienced not a conflict, but a serious failure of governance in which elections were rigged by the then President Burnham to keep him and his party in power. A one-party state was established, and from one form of corruption—the corruption of the electoral machinery—others followed. The sugar, bauxite and timber industries and the retail sector were all taken over, as was anything else that the Government could lay their hands on by borrowing money that they could not repay. Guyana was reduced from a middle-income, least developed country to one of the poorest countries in the world. It was one of the first countries to benefit from the HIPC initiative—the world community's attempts to write off debt, so that development can be restarted in heavily indebted poor countries.
Governance is hugely important in itself, and conflict breaks down governance. The whole of the judicial system in Rwanda was obliterated: there were no judges, no magistrates, and no clerks to magistrates or to any other courts. We witnessed an event that will always haunt me—the incarceration of 1,200 prisoners in an old warehouse in Kigali. When we visited those prisoners, they had been there for four years. None had been charged: they were simply there, and their morale and physical condition was constantly deteriorating. Many suicides took place within that prison.
Ms Oona King: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that attempts by the United Nations to bring many of those implicated in the genocide to justice were not as speedy as they should have been and, in some respects, hindered the Rwandan Government's attempts to do so themselves? We should be pressing the United Nations to ensure that justice is more readily available to countries such as Rwanda that are facing complete and utter annihilation.
Mr. Wells: I very much agree. We should contrast the condition in which the international community left Rwanda—without any capacity to implement justice—with what is happening in Kosovo. I hear that we are going to send judges, magistrates and clerks to help provide a system of justice—only a year after the Kosovo conflict. That did not happen in four years in Rwanda, although some people are now being trained there to take on the task of administering justice. Without justice, and the capacity to charge and try people objectively, there can be no resolution of conflict. That became clear in Kosovo and action was taken, but it was not taken until much later in Rwanda, and it is still rudimentary justice.
Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend and I reached similar conclusions when we discussed the report. I wish to reinforce his point about governance and political

71WH
leadership. In the countries that we examined, and in some that we visited, governance and political leadership were fundamentally important. Where there has been conflict, invariably there has been poor governance. That was so in Iraq, in Rwanda before the war and in Mozambique, whose problems are extremely complicated. When a better Government is in place, as in Uganda, in Mozambique now and in Rwanda, although it is not a democratic Government, and there is better governance, it becomes possible to suppress conflict and drive it away.
Mr. Wells: I agree entirely with that analysis. A good system of justice is a major way of preventing conflict in a country. Objective judicial systems are needed to begin with; they have to be in place to prevent conflict. They must not be corrupt in any way, and the people must trust them if they are trying to reconstruct a country that has suffered conflict.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend made the powerful point that within a year of the conflict in Kosovo we are sending in a barrage of lawyers to underpin the legal system. That never happened in the four years after the conflicts on Africa. Does my hon. Friend agree that that raises serious questions for western Governments, especially our own, as regards employing double standards between European countries and African countries? We must be careful to be even-handed in our approach to conflict anywhere in the world, be it on our doorstep or in Asia.
Mr. Wells: Our report contrasts the amount of money that was donated and committed to the reconstruction of Kosovo with the sum that was committed to the reconstruction of Rwanda. Kosovo was oversubscribed, while Rwanda received less than 25 per cent. of the amount that was thought necessary for immediate disbursement there. That shows that the international system is not even-handed, and it will encourage jealousies and distrusts, which we should not excite in any way. The world must address itself to this problem, because it is clear that there is one generosity for those with whom we can identify—white people, not to put too fine a point on it—and another for black people. No self-respecting person or institution can sustain that, in this country or anywhere else. I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am extremely angry that it is happening. None the less, we must keep working to ensure that international assistance is given to places such as Rwanda, Guyana, Zimbabwe and South Africa.
Our report also refers to truth commissions and the application of other methods of justice in post-conflict situations. When justice has broken down completely and there are no people to set up and administer justice, let alone conduct court cases, other methods must be used to bring about reconciliation. It is important to learn from the truth commisison in South Africa, which has shown that there is a way quickly to re-establish justice, albeit a rough-and-ready method. There are faults with that system, but at least it would have prevented 1,200 young men from having to sit in a warehouse in Rwanda for four years with nothing to do, deteriorating in every possible way. Resentments and jealousies build up, and that may lead to further conflict. These methods must be worked on, improved and
72WH
refined, but they represent a quick way to begin to reestablish justice in a post-conflict situation, which is essential.
In Africa particularly, but also in Europe, democracy is crucial to providing a stable system of government. It has served this country well. It is evolving and changing all the time to adjust to new circumstances and demands by the electorate. It also provides a means of changing Governments without conflict.
The report examines whether it is possible, in view of their history, to establish a sustainable democracy in countries such as Rwanda, Mozambique and South Africa. My answer is yes, it is—partly because democracy is an African form of government. In truth, democracy is not just an African or European form of government, but a human form of government. It provides the essential element of justice, because it provides a method of discussing issues that engenders consent to the decision adopted by the majority. A bad or wrong decision can still be obeyed under the rule of law, and people can live with it for the time being until others come to power and change the Government. That is the essential element of decmocracy and it is an African system.
The Committee visited Swaziland only two weeks ago. The King of Swaziland is one of the few remaining monarchical figures in Africa, but he is not a military dictator or a dictator of any sort. He has to hold meetings in the traditional fashion and in two Houses—an aristocratic, landowners' House and a non-landowners' House. Is that not familiar to people who know the Westminster system? As I say, that is a traditional African system. The King has to find out the majority opinion among his people before he implements any decisions. Democracy can assist Africa to avoid conflict, as the report confirms, but, if democracy is to be firmly established, it must have help.
We were in Malawi two weeks ago. The Malawi Parliament meets twice a year for two weeks because it cannot afford to meet more often. I do not accept that, but that is what it says. There is a shortage of money, but it has a public accounts committee and a treasury committee, and a committee dealing with labour standards—and it looks wonderful. Those committees have to share two or three clerks to help them with their deliberations. I asked when they last met and was told that they had never met. The reason is that they have to meet at the same time as the Parliament and there are not enough staff to run both Parliament and the committees. That suggests that the country needs assistance with running its Parliaments—the essential part of its democracy.
Such countries need assistance to run their electoral systems properly, to evolve their government and call their Executives to account. That is vital to producing a framework for economic development.
Another important issue is the role of the private sector. The White Paper on international development clearly recognises that the private sector is the engine of development, and that money that flows into private sector investment and trade far outweighs any sums that can be produced through aid agencies, the Department for International Development, the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. It is essential for the private sector to be involved. However, it may

73WH
contribute to the difficulties that a country faces if it becomes involved in corrupt practices. Paragraph 15 of the report states:
The Development White Paper lists the consequences of corruption—higher prices and fewer employment opportunities, the diversion of scarce resources away from poverty elimination, constraints to growth due to the uncertainty and unpredictability of costs to prospective investors, reduced representation for the poor and the perpetuation of elites.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my hon. Friend share my sense of outrage that when we were in Malawi and saw one of the few functioning anticorruption services, we were told that to pursue a pretty obvious case of corruption within the country, the service had applied to the United Kingdom for assistance and had been told by the Department of Trade and Industry that there were no powers within that Department to compel a British company to explain its conduct. When the service went to the Home Office for help, the latter said that the matter was nothing to do with it.
It is disgraceful to be preaching the gospel of anticorruption abroad, only to find that our own legislative practices make it impossible for developing countries to pursue crooks there.
Mr. Wells: Yes, I share my hon. Friend's disgust at that. He will remember that in the report that we are discussing we made a positive recommendation that legislation should be enacted in the United Kingdom to make it an offence to bribe government officials and any other persons in a third country. As far as I know, such legislation has not yet come before us. It is essential that it be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity. We should at least put our own house in order. Bribery takes two people, the person to offer and the person to accept. Sometimes Mr. Fayed seems also to forget that, but that is another matter.
I shall illustrate the corruption that is taking place, especially in regard to power supply. In each of the countries that the Committee has visited recently—India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malawi and Zambia—we found that the power supply company had been corrupted. These companies have been corrupted by their Governments because they do not pay their bills. If Governments do not pay their bills, the price of power supply has to increase for those who do pay their bills.
Corruption arises in other ways. We are told that in Bangladesh, electricity is supplied to large undertakings at very much lower prices than the standard tariffs. We find that power supplies are continually undermined by Governments and by powerful people within the community. As a result, the electricity service deteriorates and it cannot be supplied to rural areas to poor people. That is extremely important in developmental terms, because electricity provides a source of light that does not strain people's eyes if they are studying at night. Education is hugely important in the anti-poverty drive. Electricity is very important also because rural people without a power supply are obliged
74WH
to cut down trees to enable them to light fires to keep warm and cook food.
These corrupt practices do not need to happen in a developing country. Electricity supply companies should be profitable and should be contributing to the elimination of poverty by supplying power to rural and other areas. They are not the most profitable areas to supply, but it is essential that they be supplied, in the drive for development. A regular power supply is essential to run computers and other modern equipment. It is only by jumping over developmental gaps into new technology that many countries will begin to work themselves out of poverty.
The corruption that we have witnessed in power supply companies is extremely dangerous. Sadly, it is typical of much of what we find in developing countries. Much of the corruption is caused because these countries do not collect their revenue properly. They need assistance in collecting taxes and in devising means by which their customs and excise services can be run properly. They need assistance in collecting sufficient revenue to enable them to pay their civil servants properly. That applies also to their police forces and armed services. As these people are not paid anything like a living wage, minor corruption it is huge in its impact, because almost every one of them has to be corrupt—is a serious problem in introducing good governance in developing countries, and we need to help them overcome the problem. I know that the Department for International Development is doing a great deal in this area, and I am sure that the Minister will tell us about some of the initiatives that he will take.
There are non-oppressive methods that can be used to defeat corruption. I take as an example the road that is being built between Johannesburg and Maputo. It crosses an international boundary, and it will be built by the private sector, which has been given a 25-year lease. It is required to provide toll booths and to ensure that lorries using the road are not overweight and that drivers do not exceed speed limits, for example. The private sector will have to maintain the road for 25 years and hand it back at the end of that period, or possibly renew the arrangement.
Such an arrangement has the benefit that it eliminates the many forms of corruption that are still taking place on the road between Mombassa, Nairobi and Kampala in east Africa. In that area, Ministers own trucks and shipping companies. They overload their trucks because that is clearly beneficial for them. The road deteriorates and collapses as a result. That is a typical example of corruption.
In the context of the road between Johannesburg and Maputo, if the private sector pays more in bribes or if there is ministerial corruption, the price of the road and hence the tolls will increase. If the toll is fixed, the private sector will not get its money back so quickly. Corruption can be eliminated by the way in which the contract is let. Such arrangements should be thought out and considered in developing countries. That will lead to a reduction in corruption and its pervasive influence.

75WH
Good governance and good administration and justice systems are essential if development is to take place. The absence of conflict is essential. Development cannot take place in circumstances where violent conflict is an ever-present threat or reality. Progress towards the achievement of international targets for development and the halving of poverty by the year 2015 cannot take place in those circumstances.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that we have taken up 40 minutes of a one-and-a-half hour debate. It is clear that other hon. Members want to speak and it will be appropriate, although my successor will be in the Chair when the Minister is asked to reply, to give the Minister adequate time to respond. I hope that all hon. Members will note that.
11.39 am
Mr. Tony Worthington: Because of the time left, I shall be brief. In fact, I shall make only one point, which is to follow on from the remarks that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) has made about the crucial issue of governance. We must invest in governance—in capacity building and co-ordination of capacity building—if only because of the financial cost of the destructive consequences of a failed prevention strategy.
The issue of governance is rising up the development community's agenda. It is no use investing money in good services such as education and health unless those services are properly administered. In Bangladesh, the administration of the Government education system is appalling. Good systems of administration are needed if services are to be delivered effectively.
There are innumerable agencies other than the Department for International Development now involved in good governance activities: the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, through know-how funds; the British Council and the Commonwealth; the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union; police services, local government bodies and trade unions; and the European Union, through its administration of the PHARE and TACIS funds. In addition, the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation are involved. Only last week, the director-general of the WTO said that one of his priorities is capacity building, because if countries cannot be part of the world trading system owing to a lack of capacity, it is a recipe for disorganisation and future conflict.
Non-governmental organisations do a great deal of work in this sphere, and I pay tribute to two with which I and other hon. Members have been associated. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which was established by the previous Government with all-party support, does invaluable work. I have been involved in its activities in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Nigeria and Kenya. It is soon to start operations in Sierra Leone. That organisation enables parliamentarians to help parliamentarians of other countries to establish systems of good governance, and I commend its highly fulfilling work. I also pay tribute to the BBC. Under its
76WH
retiring head of training, Gwyneth Henderson, the BBC World Service has done a huge amount of work to train journalists in central and eastern Europe who are attempting to set up a free press, free television, free broadcasting and so on.
We have to ask whether we are getting full value for money from all the activities associated with good governance. Institution building is extremely difficult: it is easy to rebuild buildings and physical infrastructure, but building social institutions is far harder. Our current experiences in Northern Ireland and Kosovo tell us that. I am pleased that such activities are occurring, but they are unco-ordinated, even when only the British Government are involved. Countries such as Sierra Leone and Nigeria present huge challenges, but much of our work is short term, unco-ordinated and not part of a general plan of social reconstruction.
What I would like to know from the Minister—[Interruption]—is how we stop that noise.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All I can suggest is that we continue to make progress while those who are in charge of the sound try to do something about it.
Mr. Worthington: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In places such as Nigeria and Sierra Leone, the amount of investment needed, especially in human resources, is vast. I understand that the Department for International Development is soon to produce a governance strategy paper; perhaps that will provide the focus that is needed. Certainly, the theme of governance needs to be focused on more tightly, and a catalyst is needed to bring together available resources. We do not need to create a new institute or academic institution, or to reinvent existing structures. For example, if the problem is media operations in a democracy, the BBC, the independent television companies and the free press can help.
Long-term work is needed to achieve good governance, not short-term projects. We as a country have great assets: our language, our contacts with many parts of the world, our democratic stability, our key membership of bodies such as the Commonwealth, the United Nations Security Council, the World bank and the International Monetary Fund, and the quality of work done by the Department for International Development and other agencies.
I draw hon. Members' attention to paragraph 42 of our report, which states the views of International Alert and Oxfam. International Alert told the Committee that
attempts to persuade governments to engage in peaceful conflict resolution had in the past "been made difficult by the lack of consistency in policy on the part of the international community."
Oxfam stated that in the area of conflict prevention
more than any other, a consistent approach is needed across government departments, bilateral donors, multilateral organisations, non-governmental organisations and the private sector.
The issue of structural stability, about which the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, the Chairman of the International Development Committee, spoke, is one that needs our finest minds and our best work on institution building. Much of our activity is worth while, but I am not convinced that we have recognised the scale of the work that is needed and the extent to which planning of that work is needed.
11.46 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on the sympathetic and knowledgeable way in which he has presented the report. Like him and the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), I look forward to hearing the Minister's speech. The report of the International Development Committee was published some time ago—indeed, much of the evidence was taken in 1998—as was the Government's response. I am sure that I am not alone in thinking that a report of such significance and importance should have been debated on the Floor of the House and afforded a three-hour debate, instead of being debated for one and a half hours in Westminster Hall. I hope that the Minister will write to hon. Members who raise points to which he is unable to respond in the time available to him.
I am only too aware of the results of conflict. That knowledge is shared by the entire population of the United Kingdom, because of the rapid communications systems available in the modern world. Improved communications have great benefits, and they allow to be beamed straight into our sitting rooms reports that reveal the sights and sounds of conflict. However, that greater awareness can result in complacency, or acceptance of the inevitability of conflicts in some parts of the world. We should not delude ourselves, either, that conflict is inevitable, or that it can always be prevented. Instead, we should use our increasing awareness to focus on what is possible and on the programmes and actions that can be pursued, especially by our own Government.
I believe that the report makes a contribution to that process. It offers an invaluable insight into events around the world and the Government's attitude toward them. It has not escaped my notice that the report received unanimous, cross-party support on the Committee; there were no dissenting voices.
A story broadcast on the radio this morning caught my attention, because it involved a fellow European Union country. As a current example of conflict, the story concentrated on Angola and the possibility that diamonds are being brokered through Belgium. A Belgian Foreign Office spokesman acknowledged that the diamonds probably were coming through Belgium and being sold so that arms could be supplied to fuel the conflict in Angola.
In the papers this morning we read of the potential conflict in the Pacific rim. In Taiwan, one of the candidates in the elections there has expressed views on independence, which brings its own dangers.
The media bring into our homes daily stories of potential and existing conflicts all round the world. We must not take our eye off the ball. We must concentrate on what we can do to help to prevent those conflicts or limit the damage from existing conflicts.
I shall not take up the Chamber's time for too long as other hon. Members want to contribute, but I wish to raise a few issues arising from the Government's response, to which I hope the Minister will reply.
78WH
In paragraph 2, the Government express the view that
the international community has an array of measures—including development co-operation and security sector reform as well as diplomatic pressure and UN interventions.
I hope that the Minister will join me in pressing once again for a full examination of the situation in Kosovo, so that we can evaluate the success, or rather the failure, of the diplomatic pressure that was brought to bear in Rambouillet. The Opposition have called many times for a full investigation to be undertaken, instead of the matter being left to three Select Committees. I hope that the Minister will respond on that.
The Minister should also consider what the European Union is doing. In a recent Conflict Prevention Newsletter, it was noted that the Helsinki summit in December decided to go ahead with a rapid reaction force, but that
progress on the conflict prevention agenda, by contrast, is modest.
We need to know what the EU will do to help to apply diplomatic pressure, and what other measures the EU has at its disposal.
The Government stated in their response that the
DTI will carefully consider the Committee's views in preparing future departmental reports.
That was on 21 October 1999. In the light of comments that we heard earlier about the trading position, can the Minister tell us what steps have been taken by the DTI to move that agenda forward? What evidence of progress can the hon. Gentleman offer?
Paragraph 11 deals with institution building. The Committee rightly drew attention to the work of the British Council, and in particular requested information on how the British Council was engaged in conflict prevention through institution building. What is the Minister doing to support the British Council? Reports show that his Department is withdrawing projects from the British Council. In Africa, British Council activity has diminished substantially, as a direct result of the withdrawal of contracts by the Department.
Paragraph 33 refers to the International Criminal Court. I am particularly disturbed, as was the Committee, that the legislation to allow the UK to ratify the statute of the International Criminal Court has not yet been introduced. Can the Minister update us on the progress that has been made in that regard, and tell us whether the draft legislation will be produced this year, next year, some time or never?
There are many other issues in the report that I should like to cover, and many Government responses that need to be probed further. However, I notice that I have been speaking for eight minutes, and I want to give others a chance to speak. I hope that the Minister has made a note of all the questions that I posed. I shall write to him about other matters that I have not been able to raise in debate this morning, to which I hope he will respond.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady.
11.55 am
Ms Oona King: I must follow in the footsteps of my hon. Friends, who have acted with more restraint than I have ever witnessed in politicians during my time in this place. I shall omit most

79WH
of what I had intended to say, and concentrate on one salient point. That concerns the rules-based approach to international conflict resolution, about which we have heard so much.
Everyone in the Chamber is agreed that without a rules-based approach, we will for ever be faced with conflicts like the one in Rwanda. Instead of the UN doing what it was set up to do in the aftermath of the second world war, it did the reverse, for whatever reason, and left the country when it was on the brink of genocide, instead of stepping in to prevent that genocide.
What practical measures can my hon. Friend the Minister and the Department suggest to prevent that? I have read most of the literature on the subject, and I can see no realistic alternative in the long run to some type of UN standing army. A UN intervention force must not be subject to the national interests of certain member states; at present, they judge whether it is in their interest to get involved in a particular conflict, rather than considering the merits of saving the lives of those at risk.
We saw in Rwanda that one Canadian UN general with 200 UN troops saved the lives of 25,000 people. Because America had had a bad experience in Somalia shortly before, it was not prepared to send in Americans. There have been other occasions when we have not been prepared to send British soldiers in.
There will always be occasions when member states think that, for their own political interests, it is not appropriate to step in at the point at which conflict prevention is possible. That is the subject of the report.
Politics is the art of the possible. If the Minister tells me that at present it is impossible to assemble some type of UN standing army operating on a rules-based approach as opposed to national interest, what can be done to make it possible? That is our job. If my hon. Friend cannot respond in detail now, I should be immensely grateful if he wrote to let me know the Department's view.
There is cross-party consensus in the Chamber on most of what we are discussing. That makes it more likely that in the future we can create the political space needed to achieve the desired result. That is the only way in which I believe we will bring about early intervention by the UN to prevent the sort of conflict—or rather the carnage—that the Committee witnessed in Rwanda.
11.58 am
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I shall be brief. I want to make three points. First, I am struck by the Department for International Development's extraordinary and largely politically correct reluctance to engage with the faith communities in various parts of the world. If we go abroad as a Select Committee, it is extremely difficult, unless we specifically request it, to have meetings with the leaders of religious organisations included in the programme. In a country such as Rwanda, where the only medium of communication with the mass of the population is the regular church service on a Sunday, such pussy-footing is extraordinary.
I understand that the matter is complex and difficult and that some conflicts are fuelled by the faith communities themselves, but unless we engage with
80WH
them and recognise their long experience of the countries in which they operate, we are missing an important trick.
The power of ideas as the basis for conflicts is underestimated. We still have the notion that if we improve economies and provide better health and education, we will eliminate conflict. I am sure that that would help. However, some powerful ideas are being batted around the world, and the developed world must accelerate the dialogue between, for example, the Muslim and the Christian countries about the theological bases on which they proceed. That will prove one of the most important ways of eliminating conflict.
Secondly, for understandable reasons, one of the Government's more ambivalent replies to our report relates to our position as a major arms supplier. Over the next few years, this country must reconsider whether it can credibly go round the world claiming that we must reduce conflict while supplying more arms to more people than anyone else in the world apart from the Americans.
Thirdly, I have been struck by the influence and importance of the diaspora of the countries that we have considered. The Department for International Development is engaged in consultations with some of them. As an international community, our use of disapora needs to be better organised. Many of the most influential, intelligent and best educated people have fled their countries because of conflict. They have established themselves in many countries overseas and become extremely sophisticated; they are often well off. Their contribution to preventing conflict needs to be developed and encouraged.
12.1 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I welcome the debate on the report. I was a member of the Select Committee on International Development when the report was produced. We spent many hours interviewing witnesses and had an unjolly trip to Africa, where we had experiences and heard stories that we shall remember for the rest of our lives. I have no time to tell them, but they were unforgettable.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), the Chairman of the Select Committee. He is extremely knowledgeable, fair and good humoured. He always rules us with tolerance and kindness.
I want to comment on two aspects of the report which concern me greatly. The first is co-ordination between Departments. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development—who, more often than not, is on the side of the angels—is present, but where are the boys from the Foreign Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury and other Departments that I shall mention? Their absence is my only sadness about the debate.
The Department for International Development has created a conflict and humanitarian affairs department: great stuff; it has produced good pamphlets. There is an interdepartmental working group on conflict and we hear about conflict impact assessments. However, do other Departments take that seriously? I reiterate that the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and

81WH
Commonwealth Office and even the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food need to take it seriously. Where is the evidence that they do?
Paragraph 10 of the Government's response to the Select Committee report deals with policy coherence and consistency. It states:
DTI is taking development increasingly seriously and working closely with DFID, particularly in the context of trade policy.
Can the Under-Secretary provide some examples? I know of two examples that show the contrary. We have heard about the DTI failing to take action on corruption when British companies operate abroad. As far as I know, it has taken no action on the ethical trading initiatives; DFID has done that.
Paragraph 13 refers to early warnings of conflict. Jane Sharp of the Centre for Defence Studies gave evidence to the Select Committee. She said:
in most conflicts we are not short of early warning—we are short of political will—and I think that sometimes, particularly in the United Kingdom, you have staff in British Embassies overseas who could be monitoring human rights abuses, but in fact invest a lot of time pursuing arms contracts.
The Government's response was confusing. It implied that the responsibility was split between the FCO and the Ministry of Defence. There is no co-ordination, despite the Government's claims.
There are many other examples: arms sales to Zimbabwe and Indonesia; multinationals operating with Government blessing in Colombia and Burma, where there is real and threatened conflict; British firms encouraged by the DTI to invest in the Sudan. Warnings have been issued now, but it is too late.
Civil war has raged in Sudan for 30 years. The Canadian Government commissioned a report, which condemned the activities of one of its oil companies, Talisman, around the oil fields in Sudan, where the Nuer people are being raped, taken into slavery and driven off their land. Yet a British company operates there and helps with the pumping equipment that pipes the oil to the north of Sudan. Where is the commitment across Departments to conflict prevention?
Arms proliferation is the second subject that I want to tackle.
Mrs. Gillan: Does the hon. Lady agree that the proliferation of small arms is important? My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) referred to children in conflict. Small arms proliferation perpetuates children's involvement in conflict. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government's response is inadequate?
Dr. Tonge: Yes. I had adequate proof of that when I visited southern Sudan last year. I asked the rebel leaders whether they had any problem in obtaining arms—there is, after all, an embargo on both parts of the Sudan. They looked at me as if I was mad. They can get small, large or middle-sized arms from anywhere they like. As the hon. Lady said, the small arms do much damage in developing countries.
Discussing the subject has become almost boring—I have been accused of raising the matter almost every day. I do. However, the Select Committee's
82WH
recommendations on arms proliferation were clear and unanimous. We acknowledge that countries may need to defend themselves. The Government responded positively to the Committee's recommendation that the interdepartmental working group on conflict should agree policies on the security requirements of specific developing countries. How many times has the working group met? What are its conclusions on the requirements?
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) pointed out that Zimbabwe is engaged in a war with the Republic of Congo. Where was the consideration of security requirements in Zimbabwe vis-a-vis development? Is there any progress on Sierra Leone and Nigeria? I look forward to the Under-Secretary's reply.
I remain unconvinced that DFID's advice on arms exports is taken seriously. I shall give two examples, which were mentioned in the report: Eritrea and Indonesia. The Government's response to criticism about arms to Indonesia stated:
particular arms exports would not, by themselves, hamper Indonesia's development.
DFID was not allowed to examine the cumulative effect of many individual arms exports. That is crazy and irresponsible. It is like saying that alcohol will not make us drunk if we take each drink in a separate glass. That is nonsense.
On Eritrea, the Government's response states that DFID raised anxieties about poverty and development. Criterion 8 of the European code of conduct on arms sales clearly deals with the effect of trade on development in specific countries. However, the FCO ignored it.
We are told that the Secretary of State for International Development does not sign the annual report on strategic exports because the Department sees only 15 per cent. of export licences. That is also utter nonsense. That 15 per cent. represents exports to the most sensitive areas of the world—those countries at most risk of conflict. Who are the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments trying to kid?
I could go on, but I dare not. Instead, I shall end with some questions. When will the arms trafficking and brokering Bill be published? We have been promised, it so when shall we have it? When will the Scott report recommendations be implemented? They are four years old. When will we have a register of arms brokers in this country? When will the Government fully comply with the European Union code of conduct on arms sales and, in particular, criterion 8, which deals with the effect on development? In short, when will the Government take development and conflict prevention seriously?
12.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Notwithstanding the speech of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and the challenging questions she posed, the Government greatly welcome the International Development Committee report. We also welcome the debate, albeit that it has lasted only an

83WH
hour and a half. It was open to the Opposition to choose conflict prevention as the subject of a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House tomorrow.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Foulkes: It worked.
Mrs. Gillan: This is not a question of the Minister's remarks working because it is worth pointing out that Mozambique has been chosen as the subject for tomorrow's debate. It also deserves to be debated in the light of what has happened. He is quite uncharitable and makes a bankrupt point.
Mr. Foulkes: The members of the Select Committee know that the Secretaries of State for International Development and for Defence gave extensive evidence on Mozambique to the Committee yesterday and they were well received. We commend the Committee's work on that particular area.
I want to answer as many questions as possible and shall endeavour to answer in writing any that I do not touch on, as requested by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who spoke for the principal opposition party. I shall move on, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is that the right form of address, John?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. The Minister is confused. He has had to call me everything from treasurer to Mr. McWilliam to Mr. Deputy Speaker over the years so I can understand why he has problems. However, the correct form of address is Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Foulkes: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Committee has, like many others, recognised that the nature of conflict has changed, that wars increasingly take place within, rather than between, states and that, tragically, civilians, rather than soldiers, are the main victims of those wars. It is widely appreciated that in many developing countries war and violent conflict are the major cause of poverty—as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), the Chairman of the Select Committee, said in his introduction—and a major barrier to progress in development. The Chairman also mentioned the clear acknowledgement from many people, including other Development Ministries around the world, that the development and security agendas are inseparable and that violent conflict arises, more often than not, because of the failure of development. As Kofi Annan put it:
The prevention of conflict begins and ends with the promotion of human security and human development.
The best guarantee of peace and of stability is economic and political development, which, as a number of hon. Members said, gives people a stake in their society and the government of their country. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford generously acknowledged, since the election in May 1997 the Government have led a radical shift in the focus of our development work towards the goals of poverty reduction and the achievement of the international development targets. All our work is now geared to that end. Our commitment to a human rights-based
84WH
approach to development is about giving people a stake in the political system of their countries—that is one of the key elements—and a say over decisions that affect their lives. That means helping countries to improve the effectiveness of governmental and administrative systems, supporting legal and judicial reforms such as those that have been asked for in the debate and providing support for action against corruption, to which hon. Members also referred.
In relation to corruption in particular, hon. Members should read the Government's reply to the Select Committee report:
The Home Office is currently conducting a review of the UK's existing legislation. The intention of this exercise is to tighten certain definitions used in the application of law and to consider related issues, such as the extent of the territorial jurisdiction of offences of corruption.
Action is being taken by the Government, as our reply shows.
Our work will help to build societies in which disputes can be managed peacefully rather than through violence. That is why we believe that our development and conflict prevention strategies are one and the same. Promoting sustainable development also means promoting the conditions for sustainable peace. The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked about Departments working together. I am pleased to tell her that the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence work closely together to tackle these areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) referred to that work. We use diplomatic and other assets to detect, monitor and address rising tensions and, together, promote human rights, good governance, democratisation, working together, the rule of law, the development of strong and vibrant civil societies and sustainable economic growth, which benefits all sections of society. As he said, we are about to produce a target strategy paper on good governance which covers all those areas—corruption, accessible justice, the rule of law and conflict. Hon. Members, and members of the Select Committee in particular, will be able to contribute to the paper during the consultation.
A number of hon. Members concentrated on Africa, and the Department welcomes that concentration as it is one of our major areas of activity. Africa was compared with Kosovo: members of the Select Committee and other Members of Parliament are pressing us to take further action there, but it is wrong to compare one with the other. We have intensified and increased our activity and our spending in Africa, and hon. Members should recognise that. Africa currently accounts for half the armed conflicts in the world and is an example of the devastating impact of war. For example, it is estimated that about 50,000 people have died in the tragic war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. In Angola's civil war, 200 people a day are dying from war, hunger and disease, and about 1.7 million people are displaced. In Sierra Leone, upwards of 50,000 people have been killed and a quarter of the population has been displaced. More than 1 million people have died in the long-running civil war in Sudan, which hon. Members mentioned.

85WH
I say to the hon. Members for Richmond Park and for Hertford and Stortford that Sudan is not forgotten and we are active there. The peace process is absolutely vital and we are the forefront in urging it on.
Dr. Tonge: Does the Minister think it wise to continue to refuse development aid to southern Sudan when the war is continuing and children are not even allowed any sort of educational aid? How can that part of the country be denied development aid when the war has gone on for so long?
Mr. Foulkes: As I have said to the hon. Lady before, where we do not work through Governments we can work through agencies, non-governmental organisations and the United Nations and its agencies. We continue to provide humanitarian aid.
Dr. Tonge: Not development aid.
Mr. Foulkes: That is another matter and we can discuss it on another occasion.
To ensure that we tackle conflicts in Africa in the most effective way, we are undertaking an innovative interdepartmental cross-cutting review of conflict in the continent. That will please the hon. Member for Richmond Park. The review is chaired by our Secretary of State, but includes representatives from the Departments that she mentioned, and its conclusions will be announced in due course as part of the 2000 review of public expenditure. I say to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that it took our Government to institute that review of Africa, although the previous Government could have done so.
Over the past two and a half years, we have moved into more controversial territory—conflict analysis, in which the Committee is particularly interested, security sector reform, post-conflict peacebuilding and small arms trafficking. There is also our collaboration with private sector business, which a number of Members raised. Those are all new issues taken up by the new Labour Government, although, again, the last Government could have done it.
Let us take conflict analysis, in which, as I said, the Committee has shown a particular interest. We are currently conducting conflict assessments in a number of countries—Moldova, Sri Lanka, Krgystan and Nepal. An explicit and systematic analysis of conflict will assist in the identification and design of development and emergency interventions that are sensitive to the dynamics of conflict, and will thus produce opportunities for contribution to long-term stability.
Security sector reform is also a priority for us. Participatory poverty assessments clearly show that the poor of the world place a high priority on security, justice and order, for the simple reason that without those things it is impossible for them to continue. A security sector that is well tasked and well managed serves the interests of all, especially the poor, but in too many countries a bloated security sector soaks up resources that would be used better elsewhere, while elements in that sector can be a major source of insecurity and human rights abuse.
86WH
The security sector also tends to pose particular problems in post-conflict societies. In such circumstances, numerous ex-soldiers without employment or the prospect of employment are often waiting for long periods for the chance to return to a normal civilian life. If action is not taken to deal with that, there is a real prospect that demobilised soldiers will resort to violent crime, the underlying causes of conflict will be reactivated and full-scale civil war will recur.
Sierra Leone is a perfect example of the dilemma, and provides the first practical test of our work with the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office on security-sector reform. The signing of the Lome agreement gives Sierra Leone a chance of peace and development. As well as providing humanitarian assistance for those who have been made homeless by the war, Britain is giving emergency budgetary support to the attempt to sustain the essential functions of government and to implement the peace agreement. Just as we were the first and most generous donor in the case of the floods in Mozambique, we are the most active and generous in Sierra Leone. Members should acknowledge that.
Mr. Rowe: The Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out that a tremendous problem is the inadequate salary—or, indeed, lack of any salary—received by many public servants. We were told an extraordinary story. A policeman had been extracting food bribes at a road block, but it turned out that the poor chap, who had been put there by his Government, had received no food or salary for the preceding three weeks, and was dying of starvation. In a sense, it would not have been exactly corrupt of him to start asking for a bit of food from passers-by.
Mr. Foulkes: That is why we are putting more resources into Sierra Leone, and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have urged other countries to join us. This is not just Britain's responsibility, although we accept a great deal of the responsibility. Since March 1998, we have contributed more than £50 million to the post-conflict reconstruction and humanitarian needs of the people of Sierra Leone.
Sierra Leone demonstrates that many donor countries are happy to sign up to conflict prevention and peacebuilding in theory, but are deeply reluctant to engage in practice. That is often due to an unwillingness to become involved in what can be very risky environments. We acknowledge that we are all taking a risk in Sierra Leone, but it is right and worth while to do so, because the potential achievements and rewards are so great.
A number of Members raised the subject of arms exports and small-arms proliferation—in particular, the hon. Member for Richmond Park. Again, for 18 years under the last Government nothing was done, but action is now being taken, although—rightly—we are being pressurised to do more. We have received representations from the Select Committee, and, in July 1997, the Government announced new criteria for the assessment of arms-export applications. Arms exports are not permitted if they might be used for internal repression or external aggression, or if they would seriously undermine the sustainable development of the

87WH
recipient country. Our Department is particularly concerned about that, and our criteria were incorporated in the European Union code of conduct that was adopted in 1998.
Ours has been the first British Government to publish annual reports on strategic export controls. We give details of the export licences that we have issued and those that we have refused to issue. That puts the United Kingdom at the forefront in terms of transparency on arms transfers.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked whether the Secretary of State would sign future reports. We are reviewing that in the light of recommendations made by the quadrilateral committee, in which members of the Select Committee participated. The hon. Lady also asked about arms trafficking and brokering. The new export control Bill will introduce tougher controls, and not before time. The Department of Trade and Industry is currently preparing draft legislation based on the White Paper on strategic export controls, and taking account of subsequent comments. After 18 years of no action, within less than three years action is being taken by this Government. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just heard a device go off. Madam Speaker deplores such activities. Anyone who has a bleeper switched on must either switch it off or take the batteries out.
Mr. Foulkes: Not only Madam Speaker deplores such activities; I do as well.
A number of Members mentioned military expenditure. We have just held a major seminar, bringing together representatives of developing countries, international financial institutions, other donors and non-governmental organisations, in order to encourage a more informed debate about the appropriate levels of such expenditure—and they need
88WH
to be appropriate. Many developing countries divert resources into the military that would be much better spent on the basic social needs of the poor.
Mrs. Gillan: Because the device interrupted us, I did not hear the Minister say when the legislation would be introduced. Did he tell us?
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Lady did not miss a thing. I said that it would be introduced as soon as possible.
Mrs. Gillan: When?
Mr. Foulkes: As soon as possible. The hon. Lady's Government had 18 years in which to act, and did not do a thing. We are acting within a much shorter period.
Our Department, working closely with the Foreign Office, is taking a greater role in the attempt to limit the means of waging war by acting to curb the proliferation of small arms and light weapons—another subject that was raised today. We are also trying to find out whether it is possible to curb the illicit trade in diamonds, which was mentioned by a number of Members and which has provided the funds to fuel and prolong conflicts in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone.
At an international level, the Government strongly support the European Union's programme to prevent and combat illicit trafficking in conventional arms. We are also working with the private sector—a new area for us. The project starts from the premise that conflict is bad for business, and that companies have much to gain from the development of effective conflict prevention strategies. Our primary aim will be to produce specific tools for companies to help them to develop such strategies.
I have not had time to answer all the questions that were asked, but, as I said earlier, I shall write to Members about the specific points that they raise. I thank members of the Select Committee for their report, which we think is a great step forward. We believe, however, that the Government are taking even greater steps forward: we believe that conflict undermines the poor people of the world, and that preventing it is one of the most important things that we in the Department and the Government can do.

Sixth Form Colleges
12.29 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am grateful to have secured the debate and to have an opportunity to speak up for sixth form colleges. They are bright stars in our educational firmament and have been a shining light amid the educational gloom. I am concerned that they should be properly appreciated, nurtured and supported.
I should declare something of an interest. I have been a governor of Luton sixth form college since incorporation, as well as in the early 1980s during its earlier local authority incarnation. Both my children attended the college and were, in their turn, chair of the student council and of the student governors. My wife was at one time a parent governor, so we have strong family connections.
The college has been part of my life for almost 20 years and does a superb job for the young people of our town. It was the first of its kind; is one of the largest colleges; and has been confirmed as one of the best, as evidenced by its glowing inspection report last year. My regard for sixth form colleges in general is, I hope, objective, but I cannot help but see a rosy picture from my Luton experience.
Sixth form colleges are part of the further education sector, which is funded through the Further Education Funding Council. As treasurer of the all-party group on further education, I am an enthusiast for further education and, indeed, have in my constituency Barnfield college, one of our largest and best further education colleges.
In the 1970s, I taught in a college of further education and undertook some part-time teaching in FE in 1995. For some years, I was chair of governors of the former Luton college of higher education, now the university of Luton. At that time, more than one third of its capacity was devoted to further education.
Sixth form colleges have been grouped with further education colleges, although they do a rather different job. There is some overlap with further education colleges, but they complement each other, rather than competing. Luton sixth form college has a significant number of general national vocational qualification courses, but the centre of gravity of further education and sixth form colleges, their focus and core business are different. There is a spectrum of provision, with further education towards one end of our post-16 rainbow and sixth form colleges towards the other, with tertiary colleges bridging the gap.
Sixth form colleges look to schools more than further education colleges. I am conscious that in some areas there is competition for sixth form students between schools and sixth form colleges. I instinctively prefer planned provision rather than competition, but some competition is inevitable where there is parallel provision.
In Luton, we have 11-to-16 high schools feeding our colleges and one 11-to-18 Catholic high school, which is generally over-subscribed because of the large Catholic population in Luton. Therefore, I am perhaps freer than some Members to extol the virtues of sixth form colleges without offending other post-16 providers.
90WH
Why are sixth form colleges so good? From the students' point of view, they provide extraordinary flexibility in choice of courses. With a large number of students, they can provide parallel classes in the same subject at different times, so that students can tailor their pattern of courses precisely to their needs. I went to an old-fashioned grammar school and was given the blunt choice of languages, science or classics. At sixth form college, I might have chosen a different pattern of A-levels and possibly other courses, had they been available. The sheer number of A-level subjects that are taught at sixth form colleges is astonishing. At Luton, we have around 2,000 students, who can choose between 37 A-level options, 10 advanced GNVQs and a range of other courses.
Even large schools, understandably, cannot match that range of provision. Academically, sixth form colleges are successful. If students wish to achieve good examination results, to maximise their chances of progressing to higher education on a course and at an institution of their choice, or to move to a good job, they cannot do better than study at a sixth form college.
Sometimes, students from fee-paying schools have chosen to transfer to a sixth form college because of its record of success—students moving from the fee-paying education sector to the state sector for positive educational reasons—but I am much more concerned about sixth form college successes with students from non-traditional, non-academic and less-affluent backgrounds. In that respect, sixth form colleges do a wonderful job.
In Luton, approximately 60 per cent. of students are from ethnic minority backgrounds, often the first generation of families who have not previously had any prospect of educational advance beyond an elementary level. The educational value added achieved by sixth form colleges such as Luton is remarkable. They make an immense contribution to widening participation in education and to providing a springboard to further educational advance and better life chances. They are also a great social integrator, especially in towns such as Luton.
If sixth form colleges are doing such an exceptional job, why have I chosen to seek the debate? The truth is that the value of sixth form colleges is not properly recognised. We have warm words from official quarters, but I am sorry to say that it is not always matched by the provision of adequate resources. Many areas have no sixth form college and many Members are not familiar with sixth form college provision. I do not think that it was properly understood and it was certainly not appreciated in Government circles at the time of incorporation.
Sixth form colleges were allocated to the further education sector, but I have a distinct feeling that that was a rather arbitrary decision and that they could equally well have been left with local education authorities, along with schools. As a result, sixth form colleges have had an uncomfortable time in recent years. Funding comparisons have often been made with further education colleges, rather than schools. In reality, further education colleges derive much of their funding from external sources, whereas sixth form colleges are entirely funded by the state through the Further Education Funding Council. If the comparisons are made with schools, sixth form colleges

91WH
come into their own. They have such economies of scale that they easily outperform school sixth forms in value for money.
That again presents a problem. Schools understandably are sensitive about those comparisons. Where school sixth forms operate alongside sixth form colleges, in an environment where Governments are looking for efficiency advantages, schools feel uncomfortable.
What is extraordinary is that the funding gap between school sixth forms and sixth form colleges has been increasing, rather than narrowing. Given their success, it is surprising that sixth form college teachers are paid less than their counterparts in schools. A salary difference of between £500 and £600 a year is typical and promotion in school sixth forms is easier to achieve than in sixth form colleges. I am not suggesting that good schools should be shorn of their sixth forms to create sixth form colleges, but sixth form colleges should at least be funded fairly.
Britain has a varied pattern of school and sixth form provision. If one could start from scratch, a sixth form college system throughout the country would be very attractive. It would be of advantage to students and to public finances, but no Government would countenance such an upheaval, so I will set aside that possibility now.
We are entering a new and exciting era with Curriculum 2000 beginning in September. I have long thought that the A-level curriculum for most students is too narrow. I strongly support the reforms. Sixth form colleges are well placed to make those reforms a success, with their wide range of courses and their flexible teaching provision, but Curriculum 2000 will need additional financial provision. Information gathered from sixth form colleges in recent days suggests that nowhere near enough money has been provided. The Further Education Funding Council must look again at sixth form college allocations.
I understand that an assumption has been made that half of sixth form college students will follow Curriculum 2000 from September, but the reality is that the great majority of all sixth form college students will do so. Some colleges have been allocated only a fraction of what they need to provide Curriculum 2000 for their students.
Before the general election, many sixth form colleges were facing financial crises. Class sizes had risen, pressures on teachers had greatly increased and the crunch was coming. Additional funding provided by the new Government relieved the pressure, but that merely staved off disaster and did not really provide the additional general funding that colleges required. Some additional funding has been allocated, but much of that is targeted, at additional IT provision, for example. Sixth form colleges need more money, so that they can pay staff salaries at least comparable with those in school sixth forms.
I am sorry that I have had to raise the difficult subject of funding as I know that every area of the public services has the same concerns. However, sixth form colleges have had a hard time. If they are to continue performing as well, they must be adequately funded. The issue will not go away.
In 1996–97, students studying for three A-levels were funded by 25 per cent. more in schools than in sixth form colleges. The most recent information from the
92WH
Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education says that the gap between sixth form college and school funding has increased to nearly 30 per cent. Sixth form colleges also face additional costs relative to schools, including provision for internal and external audit. Sixth form colleges have an average class size of 18, but it is quite common to have 25 or more. As I have said, an assumption has been made that 50 per cent. of sixth form college students will require additional Curriculum 2000 resourcing. In reality, the figure will be much higher. One college reported to me this week that 85 per cent. of its students will be covered by Curriculum 2000.
In its report on further education published in June 1998, the Select Committee on Education and Employment, emphasised the need to ensure that harmonisation is achieved by additional funding for the further education sector rather than the process of levelling down. The report says:
It should be possible to establish a common entitlement for 16–19 year old students on similar courses at schools and colleges and to fund it accordingly.
A substantial change in the funding arrangements and co-ordination of 16-to-19 education and training will occur when the Learning and Skills Bill becomes law. I welcome the change and believe that it will provide closer co-operation between different types of institution and more coherent and rational provision for all students.
I do not underestimate the difficulties involved and I hope that the minority sixth form college interest will be well served by the new learning and skills councils. The Bill envisages the creation of local education authority sixth form centres and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to ensure that sixth form colleges are funded fairly within the new arrangements.
There are some issues that I cannot cover in the time allowed, but I hope to raise some of them privately with my hon. Friend and his Department. I re-emphasise my view that sixth form colleges are an immensely valuable national resource, providing first-class education for thousands of students on quality courses with dedicated, highly qualified and highly skilled staff. They remain minority providers across the country as a whole with less than a quarter of hon. Members having a sixth form college interest. The great value of sixth form colleges may not, therefore, be fully recognised. The quality of education they provide is of the highest order. They make a vital contribution to the economy and, above all, to the advancement of those students fortunate enough to pursue their studies at such a college.
As a nation, we could do well to expand sixth form college provision, but, even at present levels, colleges must be nurtured, sustained and properly and fairly funded. I look forward to my hon. Friend's response and to on-going dialogue in the coming months and years.
12.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) for raising this important issue. I know that sixth form colleges have coped effectively with a variety of challenges and new opportunities in

93WH
recent years and have shown professionalism and dedication to their students. I have no doubt that they will continue to do so under our proposed new arrangements for post-16 provision, in which they will continue to have an important role. I know of my hon. Friend's close interest, advocacy and involvement with sixth form colleges in his town.
The chief inspector's annual report for 1998-99 reported that much of the work of sixth form colleges is of good quality and of significant benefit to students and the nation. There is clear evidence that overall levels of achievement are rising and that the great majority of colleges are well managed. The report highlighted the valued service that sixth form colleges provide to their communities.
In a recent inspection report, Luton sixth form college, which as my hon. Friend said was the first of its kind in this country, was judged to provide excellent facilities for its staff and students. The report also highlighted outstanding provision in business studies and said that the college was exceedingly well managed. I take this opportunity to congratulate the college and its staff and students on that report.
I am pleased to see that staff in many sixth form colleges are working constructively in response to the Government's agenda of raising standards. Many have recognised that the most effective way to improve quality is for them to take responsibility for their own quality assurance by evaluating their performance and making the necessary changes. That is clearly an area which Luton sixth form college takes seriously.
It is clear that many sixth form colleges have high levels of achievement and are good examples of excellence in the post-16 world. An obvious indicator of that is that four of the 15 further education colleges so far accorded beacon status by Ministers are sixth form colleges. Those beacons will help the Government raise standards by spreading good practice across other sixth form colleges.
The latest inspection evidence shows that there are 30 sixth form colleges with achievement rates of 90 per cent. or higher. The list of colleges with outstanding achievement shows that four of the six colleges with that rating for science are sixth form colleges. All five with that rating for business studies, including Luton, are sixth form colleges. The colleges are to be congratulated.
Sixth form colleges have a vital contribution to make to our level 3 national learning targets. We want to see 60 per cent. of young people achieving level 3 by the age of 21. I am delighted that success at A-level continues to grow. Since incorporation, the number of sixth form college students achieving three or more A-levels has risen from 18,300 to 25,600.
Mr. Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend look at value added measures as well as simple A-level success? Many sixth form colleges are in central urban areas with many students from deprived or non-traditional academic backgrounds. Therefore, their performance is even more remarkable by value added standards than by a simple A-level pass standard.
Mr. Wicks: I agree with my hon. Friend. I wanted to emphasise the A-level standard because,
94WH
understandably, a great deal of emphasis is placed on it. I agree, though, that in our society, other measures are sometimes more important. The way in which a school or college works with a pupil and enables him or her to make progress is crucial.
In his polite and calm manner, my hon. Friend cast some doubt on the Department's commitment to sixth form colleges. Since becoming a Minister at the end of July, I have had many discussions and been involved in dialogue with sixth form colleges and those representing their interests. On a personal level, our three children attended and enjoyed John Ruskin sixth form college in Croydon. I hope that that personal involvement will convince my hon. Friend that, although I am trying to use part of my speech to deal with policy issues, I have some parental understanding of the subject.
Mr. Hopkins: I know of my hon. Friend's support and admiration for sixth form colleges. I was not intending to level accusations at the Department. I was talking about a lack of appreciation in the generality of the government machine and the House, arising from the fact that so few members are familiar with sixth form colleges. I was emphasising a general lack of appreciation rather than criticising the Department.
Mr. Wicks: I understand that.
There are equally outstanding activities in sixth form colleges, beyond exam success: sport, music, the arts, community services and many other activities flourish and provide the opportunity for young people to develop across an enormously wide and enriching spectrum.
For the future, the new post-16 arrangements announced last summer in the White Paper "Learning to Succeed"—the Bill is now before the House—mark a step change in the organisation of education and training for people aged 16 and over. As I said earlier, sixth form colleges will continue to play an important role as we put into practice the Government's vision for post-16 learning. They can help us with our aims of widening participation. By implication, my hon. Friend was referring to that when he talked about the value added role. Sixth form colleges can offer young people a broad range of high-quality options from which to choose.
I recognise that the previous Administration's disastrous approach to further education funding means that sixth form colleges are now funded well below school sixth forms. That was the burden of much of my hon. Friend's comment. He made some forceful points in this debate about the disparity of funding between schools and sixth form colleges. I assure him that we are aware of the situation. Last summer's consultation paper on school sixth form funding put the disparity at 20 per cent. for a student taking a package of three A-levels. In response to that consultation, further education and sixth form colleges were very clear that they did not want downward convergence for schools, but a levelling upward for themselves. Of course the Government agree with that clear point.
Mr. Bob Russell: Colchester sixth form college operates in a town with three schools with sixth forms. Will the Minister confirm that the funding gap

95WH
between schools and sixth form colleges is approximately one third, not the figure that he gave? The gap can be even wider where schools with sixth forms rearrange their finances, essentially to suck up money from the 11-to-16 age group.
Mr. Wicks: The disparity that I cited was 20 per cent. However, I should be very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the matter, and to copy the correspondence to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North, so that we can be absolutely clear about the figures.
The Government agree that upward convergence for further education colleges, including sixth form colleges, is the way forward. However, we realise that that can only happen over time, and subject to resources being available. I am convinced that such convergence will come. I think that the new learning and skills councils, with their overview of all post-16 provision outside higher education, will help with that aim.
Mr. Hopkins: I should like to bring a little comfort to my hon. Friend and the Government. I believe that sixth form colleges would not need exactly the same funding levels as schools, as they have natural, built-in economies of scale, and that substantial movement towards school funding would solve all the problems.
Mr. Wicks: Clearly, we need to move towards a position in which every young person doing A-level or vocational courses at that level—regardless of whether they are in a sixth form, sixth form college or an FE institution—is being treated properly and fairly. That is our objective, but it will take some time to achieve.
Meanwhile, let us not forget that the Government have been responsible for the biggest ever injection of funds into further education and sixth form colleges. Hon. Members will know that further education is to receive significant additional funding. We are confident that our planned investment of £3.9 billion, in 2001–02—including the largest-ever annual increase for further education, of £365 million, for that year—will provide significant help to those making 16-to-18 provision in the FE sector. We have also substantially moderated the efficiency gains required by the previous Administration.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I have a specific question that I should like to ask the Minister on behalf of the principal of the Farnborough sixth form college—which is one of the very best in the country, and is everything that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) said. Given that there are to be the new local sixth form colleges under LEA auspices, will the Minister give an undertaking that the 20 per cent. differential between sixth form colleges and sixth forms will get no worse, and that he will try at some point to close that gap? Otherwise, the new colleges, with existing sixth form schools, will continue to enjoy an advantage over sixth form colleges.
Mr. Wicks: I give that reassurance to Farnborough college, and to the sixth form colleges that I have already mentioned in my speech. We want to bridge the gap positively, with sixth form colleges moving upwards. I should be grateful if, in the final six minutes of the
96WH
debate, hon. Members will bear with me and allow me to make some progress in my speech, to address the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North.
As for the post-16 curriculum reforms—known as qualifying for success, or in some quarters as Curriculum 2000—the Further Education Funding Council has made it clear that it will have early discussions with those colleges requesting increases to their provisional allocation formula for 2000–01. Each college will have a different mix of students and courses, and will decide for itself how best to implement the new post-16 curriculum. The Government are not seeking to prescribe a particular kind of curriculum, but we do want to see broad-based and flexible programmes of study. The FEFC has also guaranteed that those colleges that have requested increased funding will receive confirmation before Easter of a revised provisional allocation, where appropriate.
Today, the FEFC has provided me with the following reassurance:
Colleges are in the process of responding to their provisional funding allocations. Early indications suggest a positive take up of Curriculum 2000, particularly for sixth form colleges and general FE colleges with large numbers of A level students. Where colleges are informing the Council that they expect to have an increased number of students following the new expanded programmes, the Council will fully fund the expansion and revise colleges' funding allocations straight away.
I hope that that reassures hon. Members participating in this debate.
Sixth form colleges should also bear in mind and take full advantage of the FE standards fund. The fund was introduced to implement improvement strategies for better achievement and retention in FE. It can be used to rectify areas of weakness in colleges, for training and professional development of staff, and for the dissemination of good practice.
As has been noted in the debate, the Learning and Skills Bill makes it possible for LEAs to establish and maintain schools—sixth form centres—that cater solely for 16 to 19-year-olds. The Government have no preferred model of post-16 provision; nor would we wish to prescribe one. The opportunity for LEAs to create those new institutions should not be seen as any form of threat to sixth form colleges and their valid place in 16-to-19 provision.
Sixth form colleges will remain firmly in the further education sector. They are different types of animals and will serve different purposes. It will still be possible for new sixth form colleges to be established, if that is felt to be the best way of meeting the needs in a particular locality. LEA-maintained 16-to-19 institutions are not intended to compete with sixth form colleges, but— when appropriate, and with the agreement of the local learning community—they could provide an alternative way of meeting local needs.
Our drive is to bring more coherence to the 16–19 sector, and, simultaneously, to increase choice, drive up standards and offer breadth of provision. When individual school sixth forms cannot offer sufficient curriculum breadth, the school and the LEA will need to look carefully at a range of options, such as collaboration, consortiums agreements and LEA-maintained institutions.
I hope that the outcome of the new, more joined-up approach to the post-16 world will be much better collaboration between sixth form colleges and school

97WH
sixth forms. The joint report, at the end of last summer, from Ofsted and FEFC inspectors, gave some clear messages about the value of such an approach. Above all, collaboration serves to broaden the curriculum on offer. Additionally, a greater number of courses and more subject combinations are available to students, and there is a wider range of routes for progress. Moreover, courses can be provided more economically when collaboration tackles the issue of classes that individually would be too small. I hope that sixth form colleges will show a willingness to open their doors to such arrangements.
The new post-16 arrangements are designed to ensure that patterns of provision meet local needs, drive up standards and encourage greater collaboration. I give the clear assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North that sixth form colleges have a vital role to play in that process, in delivering the high-quality education that young people in this country need to enable them to make the most of themselves, and of the opportunities that are available to them, as they move forward into adult life.
Our commitment, as a Department and as a Government, is not to structures—and it is not our desire to side with school sixth forms against sixth form colleges or FE colleges. Our concern is to enable our young men and women, post-16, to have the very best opportunities, whether academic or vocational, or sometimes a mix. Different institutions—including schools, sixth form colleges and those in the FE sector have a vital role to play in that significant agenda for our country.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for addressing this important issue, and for doing it in such an able way.

Barclays Bank Closures (Northumberland)
1 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad to see a north-east Member in the Chair, a north-east Minister here to reply to the debate and at least one other north-east Member in this Chamber.
At the beginning of March, Barclays customers in Belford, Lowick and Norham received a patronising letter telling them that their branch would close in five weeks' time. A map was enclosed showing that there was another branch between eight and 16 miles away, No bus timetable was enclosed, as that would have revealed the near impossibility of getting there and back again and transacting banking business. The branches recommended were in Seahouses and Wooler. The Seahouses branch presents additional practical problems for anyone needing to park their car and deposit cash at the bank.
To add insult to injury, Barclays customers found in the newspapers at about the same time a two-page full colour advert saying:
A big world needs a big bank: with more offices in Europe than any other bank.
As far as Barclays current management is concerned, rural Northumberland is not in the big world or in Europe, so it does not deserve any offices or branches of the bank.
The implications of the Barclays closure programme for the Government's policy for regenerating rural areas are devastating, particularly when combined with threats to post offices. They affect pensioners and families, particularly given the Government's plans to have benefits paid through bank accounts—what bank accounts at what banks?
My constituency is not alone in this deprivation. There are 17 motions and many amendments on the Order Paper attacking Barclays bank closures—more than I have seen on any other single issue in 26 years in the House. Whatever else it has done, Barclays has scored another public relations disaster to rival its grasping plans for cash machine charges.
Who on earth will want to bank with an institution that is so disloyal to its customers? Some people have no choice. Since the days of Martins bank, which Barclays took over, Barclays has been the dominant banker in the rural communities of Northumberland. Outside the three main towns there are only two branches of banks other than Barclays and no building society branches. There are no cash dispensers. In the three communities where Barclays branches are being closed, there are no other banking services apart from those provided by the invaluable local sub-post offices, which are themselves deeply worried about the future.
The two smaller communities of Lowick and Norham are nevertheless larger villages by Northumberland standards. I know that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is familiar with them. He likes to spend his spare time in my constituency and I often encounter him around the countryside of Northumberland, so he knows the distances involved and the communities that I am talking about.

99WH
Lowick used to have many shops and businesses and no fewer than six churches. It still has several businesses, three churches and two pubs. There are many pensioners and numerous disabled people who need access to a bank, with the part-time sub-branch of Barclays meeting their needs. It is many miles to the towns where there are banks. Norham still has a butcher, a baker and several shops and needs its banking services. Again, many pensioners there depend on the bank.
Perhaps the most extraordinary closure plan is at Belford, which is thought of as a large village, but has many of the features of a small market town, with quite a wide range of shops and businesses and large numbers of summer visitors. It is a community that is determined to build for the future with the very active Belford Trade Association working enthusiastically with local councillors and with me to promote improvements. With an active rail users group, it is well on the way to getting Belford station reopened for passengers. New signs that have been planned for the A 1 will bring many more visitors to use the local services, and they will expect a bank to be one of those services. The community is working on funding to revive the town's industrial estate. The community is designated for growth by both borough and county councils, yet Barclays wants to abandon this growing and strengthening community where more than 700 people hold Barclays accounts and many more Barclays customers use the branch to service Barclays accounts elsewhere.
Mr. Denis Murphy: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with my constituents in Newbigginby-the-Sea and Guide Post who have also been affected by a recent Barclays closure announcement? They were absolutely dismayed to see Barclays spending tens of millions of pounds on an advertising campaign to attract new customers, having turned its back on customers who have been loyal for many years. Does the right hon. Gentleman further agree that that money would be better spent on providing a service for existing customers, and that Barclays should immediately lift the threat of closure from those branches and reopen the banks that it has recently closed?
Mr. Beith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, some of my constituents in the village of Lynemouth used to use the Barclays branch in Newbiggin-by-theSea, which is also threatened with closure. Barclays' advertising campaign must have been one of the most wasted in history as its actions speak so much louder than its words. The two-page advertisements telling you to open an account at Barclays will be totally unconvincing to my constituents who will see that as soon as you open an account, the branch will be closed—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is referring to me. I can reassure him that I have no such intentions, particularly in current circumstances.
Mr. Beith: Indeed. I was referring to you figuratively, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you apply your customary shrewdness in choosing where to bank.
100WH
There is no evidence of decline in the use of the Belford branch. Indeed, it is such a busy place that it is a recognised community meeting point. Many pensioners depend on the bank's facilities and are unable to travel elsewhere. A large number of local businesses depend on being able to deposit cash at the branch and do not want the wasted time and greatly increased risk of a 20 or 30-mile round trip, sometimes daily, to bank their cash. Closure would be a real setback to village regeneration. That is an issue for the Government's rural policy as well as for Barclays.
What is particularly indefensible about all the closures going ahead so quickly is that the programme takes no account of work in which Barclays is currently involved to look at banking in rural communities, including the British Bankers Association report "Banking without Branches". The British Bankers Association commissioned an independent study from Bristol university into the effects of bank closures and how communities cope without a local branch. The major banks asked for time to consider the report, but they are not giving their customers time to consider before removing their services.
The report highlighted the disproportionate effect of closures on the most vulnerable—the elderly and the disabled—and on small businesses. That was assuming that there would be a bank within four miles, even after the local branch had closed. In my constituency, the distances would be much greater. The report showed that 70 per cent. of small retailers visit their local branch more than once a week, and 80 per cent. of those surveyed use paying-in facilities. Barclays is ignoring all that.
In addition, Barclays is involved in an experiment in Cornwall looking at community banking services. There is a proposal for up to 200 Cornish post offices to take over the four basic functions of a bank for Barclays' personal customers—not business customers—such as withdrawals, paying in, cashing cheques and so on. I think that it begins this week on 16 March—and is supposed to be in place throughout Cornwall by the end of April. It has been agreed between Post Office Counters Ltd. and Barclays, but it has not yet been agreed by all the postmasters in Cornwall. Questions are being asked about how logistically possible the arrangements are. There is no time scale for evaluating the experiment and there are security and other problems associated with it. Why is Barclays not awaiting the outcome of its own experiment before going ahead with rural closures at the other end of the country?
Barclays also make much of online banking. A survey of the 767 Barclays customers in Belford revealed that only a tiny proportion of them were engaged in online banking and most of them did not depend wholly on it; they continued to use the bank for cash facilities. One cannot pay cash into or get cash out of a computer screen. If anyone has found a way of doing that I would be fascinated to observe it. People still require a bank branch. Barclays is leaping ahead of its own customers in assuming that they do not require services that are clearly still needed. I have pleaded with the chairman of Barclays to defer the rural closures until there is a response to the survey and some results from the Cornish pilot scheme, and until there has been some

101WH
consultation between the bank and local communities about alternatives to closure and services that could continue through local agents such as the Post Office.
I ask the Government to put pressure on Barclays to give us a breathing space and to start thinking more sensibly about rural communities. With a 30 per cent. profit increase to £2.5 billion, the bank can hardly plead poverty; it has room for manoeuvre, which it should use to help its own customers in rural communities.
I also ask the Government to give very careful consideration to the impact on rural communities of banking closures and to the measures that could be taken as part of Government rural policy. I ask them to look, for example, at United States legislation which I believe requires banks to assist in setting up alternative arrangements if a closure would leave a local community without a branch.
There is concern both nationally and regionally. The Newcastle Journal "Save our Villages" campaign underlines how strong the concern is throughout the north-east. With such widespread concern, the bank really ought to realise how much damage it is doing both to itself and to rural communities by rushing ahead with closures without consultation of the kind that I have described.
I hope that the Government can apply some pressure in their current discussions with the banks to get Barclays to give us some more time. The discussions have of course extended to the whole cash machine charges issue and have not been a very good omen for any further discussions that might take place.
Barclays, in particular, has not demonstrated a responsible attitude. It now has an opportunity to show that it cares about its customers and about the communities in which it has traditionally been dominant for many years. If it fails to respond, it will pay a heavy price and many people throughout the country will feel that it is not an institution with which they want to be associated in any way.
My most urgent plea of all is to Barclays: defer the closures and give rural communities a chance.
1.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) represents one of the most beautiful constituencies in the country and, as he said, I am very familiar with it. I want to say at the outset that I share his disappointment with the attitude of Barclays towards its rural customers, and in particular the ones who will be affected by the closures.
The Government readily accept that ease of access to financial services is important in maintaining rural businesses and in encouraging rural regeneration, and that it is an important part of rural life. Barclays justifies its closure proposals by saying that it is concentrating investment in its busiest branches. It identifies what it describes as its "lowest performing branches", where it says that the number of transactions is declining. Those are the branches that have been chosen for closure.
102WH
Although Barclays has traditionally been well represented in the north-east of England, it now claims that it is
re-aligning the number of branches to get best use of them.
At present, the branches in Belford and Choppington offer banking services six days a week, while those at Lowick and Norham are more restricted. Lowick opens for two hours twice a week and Norham offers two hours three times a week. None of the banks has automatic cash dispensing facilities.
Belford in north Northumberland is a typical small rural village—it says "village" here but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it thinks of itself more as a town, as do I, of about 1,000 inhabitants, with two financial service providers: Barclays and the Post Office. The post office has longer opening hours than Barclays bank: it is open six days a week, usually until 5.30, whereas the bank closes at 3.30.
The local post office has made arrangements with Lloyds TSB, Co-operative bank and Alliance and Leicester, offering free banking services to customers of those banks. Services include both withdrawals and paying in. That shows that it is possible to make alternative arrangements if one lives in Belford, and I recommend that, if Barclays persists with the closure, those who currently bank with it consider switching to one of the three banks that have that arrangement with the local post office. I notice that Lord Walton already has plans to do that, and it may well be that others will want to follow his example.
Ms Glenda Jackson: No such alternative arrangements will be available to my constituents if Barclays goes ahead with its proposed closure of its Hampstead Heath branch. The effects that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) described will be replicated in my constituency, albeit it is not rural, and those who will be damaged most will be the bank's most loyal customers, pensioners and the small businesses in the area, the majority of whose transactions are in cash. They will face additional burdens because of their need to go to the nearest alternative branch. There is also a security element should Barclays indeed install an automatic cash machine.
I strongly endorse everything that the right hon. Gentleman said. The Government should at least ask Barclays to consult before going ahead with closures that could do enormous damage to not only rural but urban regeneration and impact against the Government's proposals for tackling social exclusion.
Mr. Mullin: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The problems in her constituency are a bit different from those in the right hon. Gentleman's, but it is true that banks are also withdrawing from some urban areas, which could have some of the effects that she outlined.
In small communities such as those that the right hon. Gentleman described, it may well be that the future of banking lies with the Post Office. The Government are providing £500 million to the Post Office for computerisation, and that will in due course enable a wider range of services to be offered. The Post Office has

103WH
about 10 times as many branches as the largest bank, which may provide an alternative for those without access to traditional bank branches.
The Post Office is currently implementing arrangements nationally and hopes to have them completed within the next 18 months. Belford post office is already connected and the postmaster there, to whom my officials have spoken in the past 24 hours or so, hopes to introduce a wider range of banking services in due course. The picture is not entirely gloomy.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, Barclays is currently carrying out a three-month trial in 270 post offices in Cornwall to see how services can be delivered through post offices. I agree that it is unfortunate that it should choose this time to close so many branches, before seeing how the experiment is working. Other banks are able to make use of the Post Office and I am disappointed that Barclays is taking what I regard as premature action in announcing the closures. At the very least, it would have been better if it had waited until its experiment in Cornwall could be assessed and alternatives set up to minimise inconvenience to customers.
In addition to the situation at Belford, Barclays proposes closing its branches at Choppington, Lowick and Norham. There are post offices or sub-post offices at all three villages and they, too, may be able to offer alternative and expanded banking services in due course. That may well be where the future lies if the big banks, or some of them, are no longer interested in customers in rural areas.
Perhaps I should say a few words about the wider picture. There is pressure not only on rural banks but on rural shops, pubs and other services, to say nothing of the current difficulties in farming. The Government intend to address the wider issues of the countryside in the rural White Paper to be published this summer. The White Paper will focus on sustainable growth and regeneration in rural areas and new directions for agriculture. It will establish service standards in rural areas and address, among other issues, social exclusion, ensuring a co-ordinated approach across Government.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has established a new Cabinet Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, to co-ordinate Government policies affecting rural areas. We have already greatly increased spending on rural programmes.
On rural transport, an additional £170 million will be spent over three years, including new support for rural bus services and encouragement for community transport initiatives. An additional £100 million has been provided for the rural bus subsidy grant to enable it to continue for a further three years past March next year. That has allowed Northumberland county council to provide improved bus services in some of its rural areas, including a post-bus service. I shall not go so far as to say that the Post Office will take over public transport as well as banking, because that would be asking too much.
The Government are encouraging local authorities to deliver improvements through local transport plans. In Northumberland, that has provided an additional £1.6 million, which may lead to an improved public transport interchange at Berwick-upon-Tweed's railway station—
104WH
I expect that the right hon. Gentleman knows about that—and the possibility, to which he referred, of the re-opening of the station at Belford for passenger traffic.
The Government are implementing mandatory rate relief for village shops and post offices. Sole shops and post offices with a rateable value of less than £5,000, which will be increased to £6,000 from 1 April, in a designated settlement of under 3,000 people, are eligible for 50 per cent. rate relief. That must affect some of the shops in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, perhaps in some of the villages where the banks are about to close. Local authorities have discretionary powers to increase that relief up to a level of 100 per cent.
On a wider front, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently announced plans for £1.6 billion of spending over the next seven years—a 60 per cent. increase—on rural development measures in England. The north-east section of the rural development plan identifies "improved access to services" as one of the goals for the north-east. That will be achieved through improvements to information technology services and increasing the number of multiuse facilities. It may be possible to use community centres and village pubs as local service centres, for example.
Mr. Beith: I would be out of order if I strayed too far into the wider issues of the agricultural crisis that our countryside faces, but I wish to press the Minister to make it clear to Barclays, perhaps through his ministerial colleagues who appear to have regular discussions with the banks, that the Government see the need for the bank to offer a breathing space to communities and allow time for consultation before closures. The Minister has expressed his approval of that proposal, but I hope that it will be made clear to Barclays that that is the Government's view. I hope also that the Government will indicate their interest in the Cornish experiment and the need to see some results from it before drastic decisions are taken. I also hope that the Minister's officials in the region, who have obviously looked into the matter in detail, will be encouraged to continue to take an interest in helping us to ensure that banking facilities of some kind remain available in the villages.
Mr. Mullin: I shall certainly make sure that the message is passed to Barclays, and I have said on the record today that the Government's view is that Barclays should delay the closures until the result of the experiment is known. We are disappointed by the approach that Barclays has taken in this and other cases.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about some legislation in the United States of America. We have briefly considered that, but we do not see that legislation would help to solve the problem. We are watching progress in the area, but there is no evidence that the US legislation has led to better access to banking in rural areas. More than 20 years after the community reinvestment legislation, the percentage of the US population without any kind of bank account is twice as high as it is in the UK, where we do not have such

105WH
legislation. The difficulties, and the distances, are on a wholly different scale in the US, but legislation may not be the right way to proceed.
Mr. Beith: I warn the Minister to be careful about his statistics, because he may have forgotten the drastic effect of American bank collapses on the willingness of Americans to put their money in local banks.
Mr. Mullin: That is a fair point, but I shall not digress into the subject of the American banking system because I would swiftly be out of my depth.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: And out of order.
Mr. Mullin: I hope that I have said enough to indicate to the right hon. Gentleman and others that the Government take seriously the problems in rural areas in general, as well as the specific ones to which he has drawn attention. We consider that access to financial services is a vital element in achieving rural development and eliminating social exclusion. I thank him for raising the issue and I hope that Barclays is prepared to reconsider its proposals until such time as realistic alternatives are available, but if it is not, customers must vote with their feet.
1.27 pm
Sitting suspended.

Fuel Taxes (Islands)
1.30 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: I begin by expressing my gratitude at being given the opportunity to hold this debate, especially as my previous debate had to be withdrawn. It is happy timing to be able to have this debate in the week before the Budget.
You have visited my constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so you know that it is composed of remote islands. So remote are they that the BBC saw fit to use one as the location for its series "Castaway". Of course, the BBC mythology that the islands are inhospitable and uninhabitable is absurd and extreme, but they are remote, and that remoteness creates difficulties for the communities who live there.
The difficulties are felt most, not by those who have to live on an island for a 12-month docusoap, but by those who live there for year after year, under Government after Government. Cheap and easy transport is essential to the economic well-being and social welfare of the communities who inhabit these remote islands.
In Britain's inner cities, social exclusion means poor education, low incomes, drugs and crime. In Britain's remote islands, it means expensive and difficult transport, which compounds the difficulties implicit in the geographic reality of remoteness. It means exclusion from the economic rhythms and benefits that mainland Britain takes for granted. Combating social exclusion in the remote areas therefore requires Government policies designed above all else to improve transport links, and to try to reduce—or at the very least contain—their cost.
I acknowledge that other parts of Britain are affected by Government policies on petrol duty and air passenger duty, and I welcome the interest of other hon. Members in this debate. However, I deliberately gave the debate a narrow title, to emphasise to my hon. Friend the Minister that the impact of those duties on remote island communities differs significantly from their impact elsewhere. The Government's future thinking must take account of that special impact.
The key to understanding the problem with fuel duty is to appreciate remote communities' greater dependence on transport by private car, given the obvious lack of public transport alternatives. I also want to highlight the scale of the gap between fuel prices in the most remote areas and in urban, mainland Britain.
Mrs. Ray Michie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and congratulate him on securing this debate. He will be aware that 68 per cent. of people in the highlands and islands own cars, or have access to them. The Scottish average is 57 per cent. Does he agree that no amount of improvement in public transport will ever overcome the need of people in remote areas to use cars? Public transport cannot go up every track and into every village. Is not it imperative that we make it clear that there is a great dependence on access to private cars?
Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. It is especially valid in connection with remote island communities, such as those that her constituency also contains.

107WH
To illustrate the price gap that I mentioned, I have the latest "Pricewatch!" leaflet produced by comhairle nan Eilean Siar, the Western Isles council. It shows that motorists in the western isles paid 84p per litre for unleaded petrol in January. That is lop a litre—or 45p a gallon, in the older measure—more than motorists in Glasgow paid. That is a real price gap.
The Office of Fair Trading is investigating that gap, and its report is awaited with interest. However, the high price paid in remote communities, if not the gap itself, is clearly related to the level of the duty. Higher prices in the highlands also mean that disproportionately more is paid to the Treasury in the form of value added tax. It is estimated that the Treasury collects almost £3 million more in VAT in the highlands and islands than would be the case if uniform prices were in operation across the United Kingdom.
I acknowledge that fuel duty is an important tax for the Government; for environmental and revenue reasons. I do not disregard those benefits for the Government, nor do I want to downplay them. I do not argue against the basic philosophy underlying fuel duty, which is to exert pressure to make cars cleaner and more fuel-efficient. However, it is now time for the Treasury to pause, and to take stock of how it collects fuel duty, in light of that duty's enormous and rapid growth in recent years.
Fuel duty now pulls in almost £23 billion for the Treasury. It is the fourth biggest tax levied by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Exercise, after income tax, VAT and corporation tax. In comparison, the combined duties on wines, spirits and beer raise less than £8 billion. Tobacco tax raises less than £6 billion, while capital gains tax and inheritance tax raise less than £5 billion between them. In fact, apart from the big four taxes that I have mentioned, no tax levied by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Exercise raises more than £10 billion a year.
I cite those figures because I do not believe that the Government can continue to levy so huge a tax in a rigid, uniform, one-size-fits-all way across the whole of the UK. The other three "big four" taxes are not levied in that way: fuel duty should not be levied in that way either.
We accept that the other big taxes have to be adjusted and adapted if they are to be seen as fair, and if a political reaction against them is to be avoided. Adjustments to income tax and corporation tax are made according to income levels, and VAT is made fairer by the exemption of food and children's clothes. Similarly, we should adjust how we levy fuel duty, given the scale of the revenue that it brings in.
It will not be enough to hypothecate future increases in the duty. The manner of its collection will have to be adjusted as well, if the Government wish it to continue to play an important role in achieving their targets of revenue growth and environmental improvement.
The obvious way to adjust fuel duty so that it is seen to be fairer is to provide a concession targeted at the most remote of our rural communities. Other countries do that, and so should we. There will be technical difficulties in devising such a scheme, but the Treasury must make a real effort to overcome them.
I want to leave other hon. Members time to speak, so I shall turn briefly to air passenger duty. Once again, the situation facing remote islands communities is unique.
108WH
Elsewhere in Britain, air services are a convenience, or even a luxury. They are certainly not a travel necessity. For the remote islands, however, they are an essential lifeline to the mainland. That is why the health services in the remote islands use air transport regularly—almost daily—to move patients and staff between the islands and mainland facilities.
The Government provide a subsidy to maintain non-profitable island-to-mainland links. That subsidy has been approved by the European Union through a public service order. That is why I believe that it is simply wrong for these lifeline air services to be subject to air passenger tax in the same way that regular air services around the UK are subject to it. I welcome the Government's consultation on that point. It is certainly more than the previous Government ever conceded.
However, I must caution my hon. Friend the Minister that the proposed exemption of internal flights between the highlands and islands will exempt only a quarter of the flights between islands and mainland Scotland. Most flights—the most expensive ones—are between the islands and other parts of Scotland that lie outside the highlands. They too must be exempted if the Government's expression of good intentions is to be turned into reality.
That proposition has the support of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who cannot attend this debate because of his duties in the Scottish Parliament, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), who is absent for similar reasons. However, both have written to the Minister on this matter. I hope that he will take heed of their representations, and of the points that I have raised.
1.39 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on securing this debate. I know that he has been taking a close interest in these topics for a considerable period.
The matters that my hon. Friend has raised are of serious concern to people in remote communities. He rightly reminded us of the reliance that they place on the car for their daily transport. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) made the telling point that car ownership statistics were higher in this part of Scotland than in others.
My hon. Friend will recall that I acknowledged those concerns when he led a delegation from the Highlands and Islands Transport Forum, which I met at the Treasury on 24 January. The Government's White Paper "A New Deal for Transport", which was published in July 1998, set out our aim of extending choice in transport and securing mobility in a way that supports sustainable development. The White Paper recognises that fiscal measures and economic instruments have a major role to play in influencing travel choice and encouraging sustainable development. Road transport alone accounts for more than 20 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions and nearly 50 per cent. of nitrogen oxide emissions, so limiting those emissions is potentially important in tackling the environmental challenges that we all face.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is very aware of the concerns of people in rural areas. It was in recognition of those concerns and others that he announced in the

109WH
pre-Budget report in November that he would in future consider all social, economic and environmental factors when reaching his Budget decisions on the appropriate rates of fuel duty—including, of course, the affordability of fuel in remote and rural communities—rather than continuing with the automatic fuel duty escalator that has applied for a number of years. It was also in recognition of those concerns that my right hon. Friend announced that Customs and Excise would be consulting on an exemption from air passenger duty for flights from the Scottish highlands and islands. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for that announcement, and I will return to it a little later in my remarks.
My hon. Friend emphasised the price differences in petrol and diesel between the remote islands and urban areas in Scotland. He made the case for Government action to address those differences. It is worth saying that there is no difference in the duty paid on a litre of petrol sold in Glasgow and a litre sold in Benbecula. The Treasury does not collect more duty according to the retail price of the fuel. The question is why fuel is more expensive in remote areas or, alternatively, why it is less expensive in urban areas. My hon. Friend's point about VAT is accurate, but it does not apply to duty. Whether the Treasury collects less VAT as a result of that is a matter for debate, because it depends on what else that money would have been spent on. However, my hon. Friend's point about a higher amount of VAT being collected per litre is correct.
On the price of fuel, a number of different economic factors come into play. It costs more to transport fuel to remote areas, the volumes sold are not as great as in towns and cities, and there is not the competition found in urban areas, particularly given the presence of supermarkets. By contrast, in urban areas, transport costs are less, greater volumes cut operating costs and intense competition between the major suppliers lowers pump prices.
The Office of Fair Trading is working to ensure that there is no cartel on pricing in the petrol market. In May 1998, its report on competition in the supply of petrol in the United Kingdom specifically considered the supply of petrol in remote rural areas, including the structure of the market in north-west Scotland. The report concluded that consumers were not paying over the odds for their petrol in that part of the country. It said that higher prices were a function of the extra costs of supply and the fact that there is less competition there than elsewhere. There was no evidence of the operation of cartels. My hon. Friend has already said that the OFT is considering these issues afresh. Like him, I look forward to its report, which I understand is likely to be available later in the spring.
My hon. Friend makes the point that, given the size of the take on fuel duty, we cannot impose a one-size-fits-all approach. In reality, we do not—there are already differential rates for cleaner fuels, for example. That has been a feature of the fuel duty system for some time. However, on none of the taxes that he describes as the big four—his analysis was interesting—do we apply different rates on a geographical basis. I suggest that any attempt to do so would create serious difficulties. In all
110WH
four cases, rates are applied in exactly the same way across the country. There is variation in the rate of those taxes, but not on a geographical basis.
The Government take seriously the transport needs of those in remote areas. We have already introduced a number of measures to address them. We allocated an additional £50 million to rural bus services in the 1998 Budget; we established the rural bus challenge fund; we set up a new rural transport partnership fund; we announced in the 1999 Budget a 20 per cent. increase in funds for rural bus services; and we announced that bus fuel duty rebate will rise in line with the rate of fuel duty for the second successive year. The rebate had been frozen for a long period, and it was unfrozen last year.
The Chancellor has said that he will consider the rates of fuel duty on a Budget-by-Budget basis. He has also said that any revenues from real-terms increases in fuel duties will go straight into a ring-fenced fund for improving public transport and modernising the road network, from which Scotland would receive its share in line with the Barnett formula.
Those are all important initiatives. I do not for a moment suggest that any of them mean that people in remote areas do not need a car. I accept that many people in remote areas and, indeed, in many parts of the country, need a car. However, it is important to emphasise how much the Government have done to improve the provision of bus and other public transport services. I would not want to underestimate the importance of the additional provision that they have made in improving public transport services for people in remote areas and elsewhere.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the Minister concede that in many of the island and rural areas that we are discussing, no amount of money put into bus services will address the essential problem to which the hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) referred? We are talking about areas in which bus frequency is not measured in how many buses come per hour but how many buses come per month. Therefore, the Government's measures are not a substitute, in economic terms, for use of the car.
Mr. Timms: I accept that many people in many parts of country need to have a car. However, I would not want us to lose sight of the importance of public transport services, even in some of our more remote areas. I simply wanted to put that on the record.
When we met in January—and, to some extent, today—my hon. Friend suggested a number of measures that would help, including exempting rural motorists from increases in fuel duty and making red diesel available for on-road use. There are a number of serious obstacles to such proposals. Not only do they conflict with our legally binding obligations under European Community directives on oils taxation, but they could conflict with EC state aid rules. We had the opportunity to discuss those issues when we met in January.
EC law sets out clearly the circumstances in which oil may be subject to a reduced rate of duty. Any new differentiated rate of excise duty requires a derogation from that directive, and such derogations are difficult to

111WH
obtain. No new derogations have been allowed on a regional basis since the introduction of the single market in 1993, and it is unlikely that any would be allowed.
Even if that were not a problem, there is also a question of principle involved in asking some UK motorists to pay for the environmental consequences of burning fossil fuels while others do not. Other problems would be involved in administering the changes which, although less significant, still need to be considered.
Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties with European Union regulations. Does he accept that Portugal and Greece have concessions that have a geographic basis? Why is it unlikely that the United Kingdom would be able to obtain a similar concession?
Mr. Timms: Those derogations were already in place when the single market was established. In a sense, the European Commission was willing to make an exception for some existing arrangements to bind those countries into the single market. The prospects for obtaining new derogations, in the UK or anywhere else in the EU, is pretty slim. I would not want to mislead hon. Members into thinking that there may be a prospect of that at the moment.
I certainly recognise the concerns expressed this afternoon. However, many other groups consider their need for access to cheaper petrol and diesel to be equally as great including, for example: road hauliers; people with disabilities; the unemployed; and those on fixed incomes, in particular pensioners. My postbag, and I suspect that of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members present, contains vigorous representations from all those groups.
At the meeting in January, I told my hon. Friend that the Scottish Executive should certainly consider how best to use the rural transport fund to help to alleviate some of the difficulties in remote communities. Representatives of the Highlands and Islands Transport Forum at the meeting said that they would be interested in providing advice to the Executive on how best that money could be spent. I would urge that those discussions should proceed.
When we met, my hon. Friend called for discussions about the feasibility of a vehicle excise duty concession for the remote Scottish islands. There have already been contacts between the Treasury and Scottish Executive officials to discuss both the proposal for a general concession for car owners in the islands and the scope for widening the existing small island vehicles concession for goods vehicles to cover some of the larger Scottish islands as well.
Both those measures would be complex to administer and difficult and time consuming to legislate for, but, nevertheless, Treasury and Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions officials will be discussing the practicalities of those ideas with the Scottish Executive to inform the Government's future Budget options.
I remind my hon. Friend that a lower rate of VED was introduced in the Budget last year for cars up to 1,100 cc. That rate applies throughout the country, but it has offered some relief to people in rural areas, such as the
112WH
ones to whom hon. Members have drawn attention, who have to depend on a car and have chosen a smaller-engined model.
On air passenger duty, remote communities—in particular island communities—often rely heavily on air transport links to maintain their way of life. There is no doubt about that; nor have I been left in any doubt that people in those communities see the air passenger duty, which may be included in the price of their air travel, as a burden. I say "which may be included" because, as hon. Members will be aware, many routes use small aircraft, which are exempt from the duty.
The Government recognise the importance of air transport to the Scottish highlands and islands, which is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his pre-Budget report last November that we would be consulting on an exemption from air passenger duty for flights departing from airports in the Scottish highlands and islands. Our primary aim in doing so was to consider ways to reduce the impact on the region's air travellers of the removal of the present exemption for the return leg of a domestic round trip, which is necessary to comply with our European Union treaty obligations.
At present, air passenger duty is charged not on the return leg of a return flight within the UK, but only on the outward leg. This different treatment for domestic flights compared with flights within the EU needs to be ended and we are consulting on what adjustments to make to the scheme at the same time. We are consulting on an exemption for flights from the Scottish highlands and islands. The formal proposal is to exempt flights from airports in areas that fall within the EC's nomenclature of units of territorial statistics II classification, where the population density is 12.5 persons per square kilometre or less—the standard definition of sparsity.
In the course of the consultation, we have received many letters from a wide variety of interested parties, including members of the public; small businesses; tourist organisations; and members of both the Scottish Parliament and this House. As hon. Members here would expect, those letters were almost universally in favour of the proposed exemption, although many urged us to go further—as my hon. Friend has done—and to exempt flights to the highlands and islands.
Hon. Members would not expect me to comment further on the likely outcome of the consultation at this stage. That is a matter for another speech, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making next week. However, it is worth pointing out that an exemption would not merely mean that travellers from airports in the highlands and islands would pay no more duty than at present. Exempting flights made from airports in the region would mean that all passengers on flights between airports within the region would be relieved completely from air passenger duty. Duty would be due only on flights to airports in the region from outside—in other words, on one leg of a return journey between the region and anywhere else in the world, as at present, and on neither leg of a journey within the region.
I emphasise that every flight leaving any airport in the highlands and islands would be exempt under our proposal—not merely a proportion of them—

113WH
irrespective of destination. Inverness would be included as one of the airports to benefit, but Aberdeen, which is located in the north-eastern Scotland region, which is a less sparsely populated region on the EU definition, would not.
Some representations have suggested that the exemption should also cover flights to the Scottish highlands and islands. My hon. Friend made such representations today and when we met in January. Other hon. Members have done so by letter. All those representations are being carefully considered within the consultation exercise and I am not able today to prejudge the conclusions that the Chancellor will reach. However, I need to point out the real practical and legal difficulties that would arise from such an exemption. To remain compliant with EU law, any exemption on flights to the highlands and islands would have to extend to flights to any region in the European Economic Area that meets the same criterion of remoteness. That would probably include northern Sweden, northern Finland,
114WH
Norway and Iceland. The concession would therefore have to go a good deal further than for the highlands and islands, and hon Members would acknowledge that that would present us with a problem in introducing a change of that sort.
I hope that I have been able to demonstrate to my hon. Friend and hon. Members that we take very seriously the concerns that he has consistently raised, which are shared by his constituents and hon. Members who represent the remoter areas of Scotland. Equally, I think that he will understand that major questions of Government revenue, environmental protection, fairness and European law need to be taken fully into account in dealing with these matters. I am sure that he will be listening with special interest to the announcements that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be making to the House next week. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that my officials and I will be happy to discuss these matters further with him once the Budget announcements have been made.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Lindane
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to control the importation of seeds treated with Lindane; what estimate he has made of the quantity of such seeds imported within the last month for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [112560]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: A ban on seed treatment uses of lindane was introduced in July 1999 following advice from the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) that the level of exposure of those treating seed with lindane was above acceptable levels. However, the ACP was satisfied that seed already treated and present in the supply chain posed no concerns.

  EU seeds marketing directives, which have been implemented by seeds marketing regulations in this country, do not require nor permit controls to be placed on the importation of seeds treated with lindane. Consequently, my Department does not have the statistical information available to enable any reliable estimate to be made of the quantity of imported seeds treated with lindane.

  Pets (Travel)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what safeguards have been put in place to ensure that animal owners participating in the pets travel pilot scheme are not overcharged for any of the services required to clear their pets for travel; and if he will make a statement. [113741]

  Ms Quin
  The charges made by veterinary surgeons to their clients for animals participating in the pets scheme are a private matter between the client and the veterinary surgeon. However, pet owners should consider shopping around between veterinary practices. The Guidance issued to all veterinary surgeons by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) states that they must give realistic fee estimates based on treatment options. If clients feel that a veterinary surgeon has acted unprofessionally in setting fees they should contact the RCVS. Alternatively, if they feel that there may have been an infringement of trading standards legislation, they should contact the local Trading Standards Office.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department has issued to pet owners to enable them to identify veterinary surgeons in France and Belgium who are able to provide the required tick and tapeworm treatment for animals under the pets travel pilot scheme; and if he will make a statement. [113740]
  174W
  Ms Quin
  We encourage pet owners to (a) consult official lists of veterinary surgeons held by the French local authorities, or other sources of local information, (b) seek advice from their transport operators as to vets that are available. In addition, each British Consulate in France will hold a copy of the Annual Directory of Veterinary Surgeons in France. In Belgium, information on vets providing this treatment is available on the British Embassy and Belgian Ministry websites and to telephone inquirers to the Embassy and Consular Offices and the Belgian Ministry helpline. Several of the transport companies participating in the PETS pilot provide lists of veterinary surgeons in France who are able to provide treatment required under the PETS scheme. There are also several independent websites which provide details of English-speaking vets in other member states.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost per animal of(a) vaccination against rabies, (b) insertion of a microchip and (c) treatment against ticks and tapeworms in connection with the pets travel pilot scheme. [113739]

  Ms Quin
  The charges made by veterinary surgeons to their clients for animals participating in the pets scheme are a private matter between the client and the veterinary surgeon. However, an indicative cost of treatment in the UK would be as follows: £50 for an initial vaccination against rabies, £30 for insertion of a microchip and from £25 for treatment against ticks and tapeworms.

  Red Tape
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to implement Recommendation 10 of the Red Tape Working Group on the Meat Industry. [113882]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: A meeting of the Government/Industry Working Group Microbiology Sub-Group has been arranged for 5 April with a view to recommending standards which plants would have to meet to be considered for exemption from Hygiene Assessment Scores procedures.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to commence the next quinquennial review of the Meat Hygiene Service. [113883]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: The Meat Hygiene Service transfers to the Food Standards Agency on 1 April 2000; it will be for the latter to decide when to carry out a Quinquennial Review.

  Farms (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tenanted farms there are in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire; what is the percentage of these farms compared to the total farming area of (i) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (ii) Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [114381]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The table provides information on farms with all their agricultural land subject to a tenancy agreement.
  175W

  (a) Shrewsbury and Atcham

  (b) Shropshire

  Number of wholly tenanted farms

  119

  658

  Percentage of agricultural land in the area accounted for by these farms

  113.4

  115.2

  Source:

  Agricultural and Horticultural Census, 1999

  Dairy Calves
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many male dairy calves have been registered with BCMS, Workington in the three months following the end of the Calf Slaughter Scheme. [111503]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: In the three months following the end of the Calf Processing Aid Scheme in July 1999 BCMS registered 144,128 male dairy calves on the Cattle Tracing System database.

WALES

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial arrangements are being made in respect of the NHS trusts in Wales dissolved on 1 April 1999 in connection with the new NHS trusts established on that day. [115216]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Pursuant to the dissolution of 20 NHS trusts in Wales on 1 April 1999 and their reconfiguration through the establishment of 10 new trusts on that date, and the remission of the outstanding debt of each of the dissolved trusts, HM Treasury presented a minute to the House on 14 March 2000 giving particulars and circumstances of the remission proposed by the National Assembly for Wales, which it has approved in principle.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Segregation Units
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the longest period of time that(a) men and (b) women had been held in a segregation unit in a prison in England and Wales on 1 March. [113835]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested cannot be obtained from the centrally available data.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the regimes to be followed in the segregation units of prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [114250]

  Mr. Boateng
  Prison Service Performance Standards require that there is a published regime for all segregation units, which is known and observed by prisoners and staff. The published regime takes account of exercise, shower or bath, visits, education, library and telephone calls.
  176W
  Prison Service Order 1700 is to be published in the summer of 2000 and a copy will be placed in the Library. It will provide specific guidance on the management of segregation units and the standards by which they will be measured. The Order makes it a requirement to have a published regime. Regimes for individual prisoners can be varied by governors following an assessment of the risks involved.

  Juvenile Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) boys and (b) girls under the age of 16 years were serving a custodial sentence on 1 March. [113832]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest available information for persons held in Prison Service establishments is for 31 January 2000. On that date, there were 166 males and five females aged 15 years serving a custodial sentence in prisons in England and Wales. Information on the numbers held in Secure Training Centres (STCs) is available only for the current date and shows that on 9 March there were 103 sentenced 12–14 year-old males held. Information on other persons aged less than 16 years in local authority accommodation is published in a Department of Health statistical bulletin entitled "Children Accommodated in Secure Units". This information is presented on a financial year basis with the last report covering the year ending 31 March 1999.

  Information on the population of persons aged 15 years in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales is published in "Prison statistics England and Wales" (Table 3.2 of the 1998 edition, column 4430) a copy of which is in the Library.

  Gammahydroxybutyrate
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to prevent the use of gammahydroxybutyrate in night clubs and pubs. [114162]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office Drugs Prevention Advisory Service (DPAS) was established in April 1999, with a remit to promote effective drugs prevention and to support local Drug Action Teams in their role of delivering the aims of the Government's national anti-drugs strategy.

  At a national level, DPAS works with the Department of Health and others on helping to establish the best ways and means of targeting young people with sound information about the risks of substance misuse. DPAS regional teams are well placed to engage with Drug Action Teams, local authority licensing bodies and other partnerships about approaches to tackling the problem of substance misuse in clubs and pubs, including the harmonisation of enforcement activity with local and community concerns about such misuse.

  Other measures taken recently to tackle the use of drugs in clubs and similar venues include bringing into force the Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Act 1997. It enables local authorities to close those clubs found to have a serious problem relating to the supply or use of controlled drugs. Home Office guidance has been issued to local authorities on the implementation of the Act. It is designed to encourage and develop partnerships between

  177W
  the police, licensing authorities and club operators to combat the threat posed by drugs to clubs and provide a safe environment for customers.

  In November 1998, a Good Practice Guide on the Implementation of the Act was published jointly by the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Local Government Association, the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association and the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit. Its recommendations include a range of measures to be implemented by clubs to safeguard health and safety and to discourage drug users on their premises.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total change was in the number of police officers(a) in each force in England and Wales and (b) in total since March 1997; what estimate he has made of the (i) planned recruitment to, (ii) expected wastage from and (iii) change in police numbers in police forces, including transfers, including information provided in the bids for the Crime Fighting Fund and the allocation of Crime Fighting Fund money, (1) in total and (2) in each of the next three years; and what estimate he has made of the expected change in police numbers in each force and in total between March 1997 and the end of each of the first three years of the Crime Fighting Fund; and if he will make a statement. [114700]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: Table A shows the total change in the number of police officers in each force in England and Wales and in total from March 1997 to September 1999.

  In respect of the figures for projected recruitment and wastage including transfers I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on 21 February 2000, Official Report, columns 826–28W.

  Table B, using figures taken from forces' bids under the Crime Fighting Fund, shows the balance of forces' projected wastage against forces' projected recruitment, including inter-force transfers. On the basis of these theoretical projections, supplemented by the additional 5,000 officers allocated to forces under the Crime Fighting Fund on 9 February, at the end of the three year scheme there should be around 1,100 more officers in the police service than there were at the start of the scheme.

  Table C shows actual and projected total police numbers between March 1997 and 2003; I must stress that the latter are projections only and are subject to a range of variables. Actual recruitment levels will depend on chief officers' decisions in the light of the available resources—including the outcome of the 2000 Spending Review now under way.

  Table A: Police strength for ordinary duty in England and Wales

  Actual Strength1

  Police force

  March 1997

  September 1999

  Change

  Avon and Somerset

  2,989

  2,989

  0

  Bedfordshire

  1,094

  1,048

  -45

  Cambridgeshire

  1,302

  1,272

  -30

  Cheshire

  2,046

  2,044

  -2

  City of London

  859

  745

  -114

  Cleveland

  1,459

  1,373

  -87

  178W

  Table A: Police strength for ordinary duty in England and Wales

  Actual Strength1

  Police force

  March 1997

  September 1999

  Change

  Cumbria

  1,144

  1,903

  -51

  Derbyshire

  1,791

  1,764

  -27

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,865

  2,861

  -3

  Dorset

  1,284

  1,276

  -8

  Durham

  1,461

  1,555

  +94

  Dyfed Powys

  1,005

  1,049

  +44

  Essex

  2,961

  2,835

  -126

  Gloucestershire

  1,133

  1,098

  -35

  Greater Manchester

  6,922

  6,810

  -111

  Gwent

  1,243

  1,261

  +18

  Hampshire

  3,452

  3,411

  -41

  Hertfordshire

  1,759

  1,760

  +1

  Humberside

  2,045

  1,926

  -119

  Kent

  3,260

  3,257

  -3

  Lancashire

  3,247

  3,221

  -26

  Leicestershire

  1,949

  1,998

  +49

  Lincolnshire

  1,196

  1,111

  -86

  Merseyside

  4,230

  4,071

  -160

  Metropolitan Police

  26,677

  25,884

  -793

  Norfolk

  1,432

  1,382

  -50

  Northamptonshire

  1,177

  1,130

  -47

  Northumbria

  3,677

  3,800

  +123

  North Wales

  1,369

  1,399

  +30

  North Yorkshire

  1,338

  1,294

  -44

  Nottinghamshire

  2,323

  2,227

  -96

  South Wales

  2,976

  2,983

  +7

  South Yorkshire

  3,159

  3,165

  +6

  Staffordshire

  2,211

  2,206

  -5

  Suffolk

  1,180

  1,160

  -20

  Surrey

  1,620

  1,721

  +102

  Sussex

  3,085

  2,909

  -176

  Thames Valley

  3,695

  3,750

  +55

  Warwickshire

  926

  916

  -10

  West Mercia

  2,040

  1,979

  -61

  West Midlands

  7,113

  7,296

  +184

  West Yorkshire

  5,209

  4,873

  -336

  Wiltshire

  1,154

  1,150

  -4

  Total all forces

  125,051

  123,050

  -2,002

  1 Full-time equivalents

  Note:

  Figures exclude secondments

  Table B: Police Officer projected recruitment less projected wastage, including inter-force transfers

  Balance wastage/recruitment 1

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  -30

  -16

  -16

  -62

  Bedfordshire

  0

  1

  -8

  -7

  Cambridgeshire

  48

  0

  0

  48

  Cheshire

  -4

  -10

  -25

  -39

  City of London

  -4

  0

  0

  -4

  Cleveland

  12

  0

  0

  12

  Cumbria

  -58

  -3

  -3

  -64

  Derbyshire

  -37

  -1

  -17

  -55

  Devon and Cornwall

  -30

  -20

  -10

  -60

  Dorset

  -8

  -1

  -1

  -10

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dyfed-Powys

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  88

  0

  0

  88

  Gloucestershire

  57

  23

  23

  103

  Greater Manchester

  -39

  -5-

  -5-

  -49

  Gwent

  -62

  28

  0

  -34

  Hampshire

  25

  0

  0

  25

  Hertfordshire

  14

  14

  14

  42

  Humberside

  -95

  -100

  -86

  -281

  Kent

  -10

  -85

  -10

  -105

  179W

  Table B: Police Officer projected recruitment less projected wastage, including inter-force transfers

  Balance wastage/recruitment 1

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Lancashire

  -18

  -16

  -32

  -66

  Leicestershire

  -4

  0

  0

  -4

  Lincolnshire

  4

  0

  0

  4

  Merseyside

  -110

  -120

  -130

  -360

  Metropolitan

  -693

  -939

  -585

  -2,217

  Norfolk

  -24

  -23

  -24

  -71

  North Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  13

  10

  11

  34

  Northamptonshire

  -14

  -14

  -14

  -42

  Northumbria

  17

  3

  3

  23

  Nottinghamshire

  14

  0

  0

  14

  South Wales

  48

  18

  18

  84

  South Yorkshire

  -21

  -21

  -18

  -60

  Staffordshire

  -78

  -50

  -11

  -139

  Suffolk

  -37

  -14

  -1

  -52

  Surrey

  15

  0

  0

  15

  Sussex

  -25

  -25

  -25

  -75

  Thames Valley

  -4

  -26

  -49

  -79

  Warwickshire

  -3

  -6

  -4

  -13

  West Mercia

  -34

  -40

  0

  -74

  West Midlands

  -5

  -5

  -5

  -15

  West Yorkshire

  -85

  -105

  -93

  -283

  Wiltshire

  -9

  -17

  -13

  -39

  Total

  -1,186

  -1,565

  -1,116

  -3,867

  1 Figures supplied by forces in their bids under the crime

  Note:

  Fighting Fund including inter-force transfers but excluding CFF recruits

  Table C: Changes in police numbers: 1997–2003

  March

  Total

  Actual

  March 1997

  127,158

  March 1998

  126,814

  March 1999

  126,096

  Estimated

  March 2000

  124,800

  Projected

  March 2001

  124,500

  March 2002

  125,000

  March 2003

  125,900

  Note:

  Figures include secondments and CFF recruits

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the offices (i) owned and (ii) rented by his Department and its agencies in Scotland and (b) the number of staff (y) employed and (z) that can be accommodated (1) in total and (2) at each site. [114238]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department and its agencies do not own any office space in Scotland. The rental of space and employment of staff by the Home Office in Scotland is as shown in the table. No estimate has been made of the number of staff that could be accommodated at these sites. This would depend on the nature of the work to be undertaken and would require a space planning exercise based on actual business requirements.
  180W

  Offices in Scotland

  Address

  Number of staff employed

  Block 1, Northgate, 96 Milton Street, Glasgow

  407

  Tay House, 300 Bath Street, Glasgow

  330

  Glasgow Airport

  34

  130 St. Vincent Street, Glasgow

  19

  Aberdeen Airport

  8.3

  Argyll House, Marketgait, Dundee

  7.5

  Edinburgh Airport

  7.5

  Blythswood House, 200 West Regent Street, Glasgow

  3

  Prestwick Airport

  0

  Franborough House, Bothwell Street, Glasgow

  0

  Total

  816.3

  Young Offender Institutions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many inmates of Feltham Young Offenders Unit and other young offenders' units in England have been assessed as mentally ill and are awaiting transfer to hospitals; [114511]

  (2) what is the average waiting time for transfer to hospitals of current inmates in young offender institutions in England who have been assessed as mentally ill; and what was the average for each of the last three years. [114512]

  Mr. Boateng
  On 31 January 2000, the latest date for which comprehensive statistics are available, four young men in establishments primarily for young offenders were reported to be awaiting transfer to hospital under sections 47 or 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983, three of whom were at Feltham. Information about average waiting times for transfer to hospital is not routinely collected centrally, though the Prison Service and the NHS are now monitoring cases where there is excessive delay.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were electronically tagged in England and Wales on 1 March. [114504]

  Mr. Boateng
  2,667 men and 254 women were electronically tagged in England and Wales as at 1 March. This includes 53 men and four women who were tagged on 1 March itself.

  Kerb Crawlers
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make kerb crawling an arrestable criminal offence. [114564]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We intend to make kerb crawling an arrestable offence as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate how many children arrived in the United Kingdom in 1999 as members of an asylum seeking family. [114251]
  181W
  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not available. Information on principal applicants and dependants is published on an annual basis. It is planned that the figures for 1999 will be included within the next Asylum Bulletin which is due to be published in June of this year. It is not possible separately to identify dependent children without the examination of individual case records at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have applied for permission to work, having been in the UK for six months or more; and how many of these have been granted permission, in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [114565]

  Mrs. Roche
  Statistics on the number of asylum seekers granted permission to work are not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many special constables were recruited by each of the police forces in England and Wales between 30 September 1998 and 30 September 1999; [111474]

  (2) how many special constables left each of the police forces in England and Wales between 30 September 1998 and 30 September 1999. [111472]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Pursuant to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 117W, a figure for the Metropolitan police was not available for inclusion in the table setting out the number of special constables recruited by each police force in England and Wales between 1 October 1998 and 30 September 1999. The Metropolitan police have confirmed that they recruited 84 special constables during the relevant period.

TREASURY

  Incomes
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the lowest possible income for a family where one partner is working for 16 hours or more a week, with one or more dependent children under(a) 16 and (b) 19 years if in full-time education. [114487]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The information requested is contained in the table:

  Minimum Income Guarantee in work

  £

  From October 1999

  From April 2000

  One child aged under 11

  144.15

  147.00

  One child aged between 11 and 15

  145.20

  147.00

  One child aged 16 or over and still in full time education

  150.25

  152.10

  Working Families Tax Credit (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families have benefited from the Working Families Tax Credit in Northern Ireland. [113225]

  Dawn Primarolo
  24,433 awards of the Working Families Tax Credit were made in Northern Ireland up to the end of January 2000.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the level of fraudulent claims as a result of the replacement of family credit with Working Families Tax Credit. [113297]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reliable estimates are not yet available.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has taken to prevent fraudulent claims for working families tax credit. [113298]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Tax Credits Act 1999, and the regulations made under that Act, provide the Inland Revenue with effective powers to make inquiries into applications. Where fraud is discovered, the Act provides for financial penalties to be charged, based on the amount fraudulently claimed. In the most serious cases, a criminal prosecution may be brought. The application form warns prospective applicants of the consequences of making a fraudulent claim.

  The Inland Revenue use risk assessment procedures to target their inquiries on the applications most likely to be fraudulent, and where the largest amounts are at stake.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the annual household income for the purposes of calculating working families tax credit includes child benefit to which the family is entitled. [114486]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: No, child benefit is wholly disregarded in calculating entitlement to the working families tax credit.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the £200 a week minimum income received by families on working families tax credit includes child benefit. [114485]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: Yes, it includes child benefit and working families tax credit as well as earnings net of tax and National Insurance.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he will issue to the Inland Revenue to ensure that working families tax credit is(a) paid in full and on time and (b) takes account of the amount owed when an employee claiming working families tax credit leaves their job. [114481]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: From April, when tax credits start to be paid by employers through the payroll, the Inland Revenue will continue to assess awards. They will tell employers exactly when they have to start paying tax credit, when to stop, and how much to pay per calendar day (the daily rate) in each pay period during which they are responsible for paying tax

  183W
  credit. The start notification sent to the employer includes a table showing 1–31 multiples of the daily rate to take account of different pay periods.

  If an employee leaves his/her job before the end of the tax credit award, the employer will have to stop paying tax credit and issue the employee with a Certificate of Payments, showing the date up to which tax credit has been paid. The employee will send this to the Inland Revenue's Tax Credit Office, who will resume direct payments of tax credit to the employee.

  Full guidance has been issued to both Inland Revenue staff and employers on these arrangements, which will ensure that employees receive the correct amount of tax credit throughout their 26-week award.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional amount per week that would be received by a family entitled to working families tax credit, for(a) one, (b) two and (c) three children, when the family's annual income is £10,400 and (i) there are no child care costs and (ii) the parental contribution to child care costs per week is (1) £10, (2) £20, (3) £30, (4) £40 and (5) £45. [114478]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: For such families with £10,400 gross income, and for 1999–2000, the value of the Working Families Tax Credit exceeds that of Family Credit by following amounts per week:

  £

  Total child care costs per week

  None

  £10

  £20

  £30

  £40

  £45

  1 child

  25.34

  27.44

  29.54

  31.64

  33.74

  34.79

  2 children

  30.04

  32.14

  34.24

  36.34

  38.44

  39.49

  3 children

  34.74

  36.84

  38.94

  41.04

  43.14

  44.19

  Note:

  Figures based on a full-time worker with all children under 11 using eligible child care

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if small businesses will be reimbursed promptly in respect of payments made by them as a result of handling working families tax credit; and if he will make a statement. [114479]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: Employers will be able to set tax credits paid to their employees against the PAYE income tax and National Insurance contributions and student loan deductions which they are due to pay to the Inland Revenue. Employers who think that they will have to pay out more in tax credits than they will deduct in PAYE income tax and National Insurance contributions and student loan deductions will be able to apply to the Inland Revenue for additional advance funding. They can apply up to six months in advance and do not have to wait until they have actually paid the tax credit.

  Payment of WFTC through the pay packet is central to demonstrating the rewards of work and making work pay for families on low incomes. The Inland Revenue has been providing an extensive range of direct practical help and support for employers, including a dedicated telephone helpline for employers and a range of literature and face to face workshops which are particularly aimed at small businesses. Every employer received a copy of the Inland Revenue's "Employer's Guide To Tax Credits".

  EU Taxation Policy Group
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the remit of the European Union's Taxation Policy Group. [114226]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The Taxation Policy Group was established following the Dublin European Council in December 1996 which noted the ECOFIN Council conclusions of November 1996. These conclusions welcomed a proposal for a group made up of member states and the Commission as set out in "Taxation in the European Union—Report on the Development of Tax Systems" of October 1996 (Com(96)546).

  The Taxation Policy Group has no power to take decisions. EU tax decisions are a matter for member states, acting by unanimity, within the Council.

  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what position was taken by Her Majesty's Government on(a) improving the VAT system in the internal market and (b) company taxation in the European Community, at the meeting of the European Union's Taxation Policy Group on 2 March. [114228]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The UK position at the meeting was wholly consistent with our public statements.

  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the agendas and minutes of the meetings of the EU Taxation Policy Group which have taken place to date. [114227]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: It has not normally been the Commission's practice to issue minutes. I will ensure that the agendas of Taxation Policy Group meetings are placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who attends meetings of the European Union's Taxation Policy Group on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. [114225]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: I am the Government's lead representative on the Taxation Policy Group. If I am unable to attend, senior officials may attend on my behalf.

  National Insurance Recording System
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department plans to seek compensation from Andersen Consulting as a result of the delays to the new National Insurance Recording System. [115218]

  Dawn Primarolo
  My conclusion is that it would not be sensible or cost effective to seek further compensation from Andersen Consulting beyond the agreed amount of £4.1 million which was paid for delays in 1997 and 1998. This also involved Andersen Consulting in additional, unrecoverable development costs of £20 million.

  In reaching this decision I have taken into account not just the contractual and legal position, but also the further investment made by Andersen Consulting beyond the development costs of some £7 million, at no cost to the Government, to ensure that the system is fully functional. Beyond this, I am satisfied that taking action against Andersen Consulting would prejudice the partnership

  185W
  relationship now established between it and the Inland Revenue. This is essential to the delivery of future changes to the system in support of the Governments National Insurance and Pensions and Welfare Reform proposals.

  Wealth Statistics
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total wealth of the richest(a) 1 per cent., (b) 5 per cent., (c) 10 per cent. and (d) 50 per cent. of the United Kingdom population; and in each case what proportion of the United Kingdom total this represents. [113894]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures are shown in the table:

  Distribution of marketable wealth 1996 1

  Wealth £ billion

  Percentage

  Top 1 per cent. of adult population

  400

  19

  Top 5 per cent. of adult population

  800

  39

  Top 10 per cent. of adult population

  1,100

  52

  Top 50 per cent. of adult population

  1,950

  93

  Entire adult population

  2,100

  100

  1 Provisional

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the full year cost from April 2000 of transferring an unused personal tax allowance from a married person to their earning spouse where(a) there are no children and (b) where that person's youngest child is (i) aged under five, (ii) under 11 and (iii) under 16 years at the beginning of the tax year. [113478]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated costs for 2000–01 of allowing a married person to transfer an unused personal tax allowance to their earning spouse are given in the table.

  Family type

  £ million

  (a) Married couples with dependant children

  600

  Married couples whose youngest child is:

  (b)(i) under the age of 5

  850

  (b)(ii) under the age of 11

  1,200

  (b)(iii) under the age of 16

  1,350

  E-commerce
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the erosion of revenue from VAT as a result of the increase in e-commerce. [114568]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Although accurate figures are not available, the VAT currently at risk is not considered to be significant. However, we will continue to monitor this area closely.

  IR35
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the increased cost to United Kingdom businesses resulting from the introduction of IR35. [114500]
  186W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Such estimates were made for the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill in the "Regulatory Impact Assessment for National Insurance Service Provision Through Intermediaries", which was published in October 1999.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated tax receipts flowing from the introduction of IR35 are for the next financial year. [114503]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the expected revenue consequences from the proposed measure to stop avoidance of tax and National Insurance Contributions using personal service companies were included in the Financial Statement and Budget Report (FSBR) which was published on Budget Day in March 1999.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the possible loss of revenue resulting from people leaving the United Kingdom following the introduction of IR35. [114499]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on our assumptions about the effects of the introduction of IR35 was included in the Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill which was published in October 1999.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the cost of the legislation introducing IR35; [114502]

  (2) what the administrative cost of IR35 will be in each of the next three financial years. [114501]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is provided on pages 15 and 16 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill published in October 1999.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will report on progress in the introduction of the NIRS 2; and if he will make a statement. [114696]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The majority of the NIRS2 system facilities are working well and we are now seeing considerable improvements. The Inland Revenue National Insurance Contributions Office is using the system to reduce backlogs and improve service to the customer.

  Remaining key elements will be in place in April 2000—this will mean that the Inland Revenue National Insurance Contributions Office can reduce backlogs of pension work which in turn will help the Benefits Agency clear benefits work.

  Churches
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to implement the European directive allowing a reduced rate of VAT on specified labour-intensive work relating to churches. [114336]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The new EC Directive on reduced rate experiments for labour-intensive services is aimed at private dwellings, not churches.

  Basic State Pension
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 January 2000,Official Report, column 502W, on the basic state pension, what would be the real increase in the yield of national insurance contributions between 1999–2000 and 2010–11 if the total yield rose in line with average earnings. [114198]

  Dawn Primarolo
  If total national insurance contributions receipts for Great Britain in 1999–2000 were increased in line with average earnings each year until 2010–11, then this figure would be some £11.7 billion higher than the 1999–2000 figure in real terms1.

  This estimate was provided by the Government Actuary's Department.
  1 Using GDP at market prices as a deflator.

  Employment Statistics
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were(a) employed and (b) unemployed in the former area of South Humberside in each year since 1981. [113902]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Shona McIsaac, dated March 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on employed and unemployed people in the former area of South Humberside since 1981. I am replying in Dr. Holt's absence.
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the government's main source of labour market data on individuals. Data on levels of employment and unemployment are available from the LFS Annual Local Area Database. These data are available back to 1994.
  In addition, information on levels of employment can be obtained from the Annual Employment Survey (AES) for 1995 to 1997 and the Census of Employment from 1981, although this survey was not carried out every year. Information on levels of unemployment can be obtained from the claimant count (the number of people receiving unemployment-related benefits), from June 1983 onwards on a monthly basis.
  Information on the sub-region requested, the former area of South Humberside, is no longer available as this area is based on pre-1974 geographies. Information for the AES and claimant count by geographical areas is available from the Nomis database in the House of Commons Library and an approximate South Humberside region can be constructed using appropriate sub-regional geographical areas, or combinations of them.

  Exports
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the fall in seasonally adjusted volume of goods exports excluding oil and erratics since August 1999; and if he will make a statement. [113890]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  188W
  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 15 March 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on export volumes. I am replying in Dr. Holt's absence.
  The information may be found in table 3 of the monthly first release, UK Trade, published on 23 February 2000, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Tobin Tax
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to discuss proposals for a Tobin tax, at the forthcoming IMF spring meetings in Washington. [114355]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: None. The Government believe the idea of a tax on currency speculation is, in principle, interesting, but has a number of practical drawbacks. In particular, it would be almost impossible to achieve a global coverage, and there would be huge scope for avoidance.

  Over the past two years the Government have worked with our G7 partners on measures designed to strengthen the international financial system and establish better mechanisms for crisis prevention and resolution. Much of the groundwork was laid during the UK presidency of the G7 with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the chair.

  Capital Controls
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the conclusion of the recent IMF report on the value of capital controls. [114714]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The IMF report of 18 November 1999 helpfully advances interactional discussion on capital controls. The report makes clear that capital controls are no substitute for sound macroeconomic policies, and that strong prudential policies play an important role in orderly and successful capital account liberalisation.

  The Government believe that open capital markets can bring huge economic benefits, and support efforts to encourage orderly, progressive capital account liberalisation. The Government recognise that large short-term capital movements can be destabilising, and believe that the benefits of liberalisation are best enjoyed in countries which have embarked upon properly sequenced economic reform. Sound macroeconomic policy, open and credible institutions and procedures and a healthy financial sector are essential pre-conditions for orderly capital account liberalisation.

  At the Cologne Economic Summit, the UK Government and our G7 partners urged the IMF to continue its work on the appropriate pace and sequencing of capital market liberalisation, and to explore other issues related to the Fund's role in facilitating an orderly approach to liberalisation.

  Currency Transaction Tax
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will commission a study into the feasibility of introducing a tax on currency transactions; [114712]
  189W
  (2) if he will support the proposal to be put forward by Canada at the United Nations Special Session in Geneva for a further study into the feasibility of a currency transaction tax. [114713]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have no plans to commission a study into the feasibility of introducing a tax on currency transactions, and will consider any proposals from others for a study on their individual merits.

  The Government believe the idea of a tax on currency speculation is, in principle, interesting, but has a number of practical drawbacks. In particular, it would be almost impossible to achieve global coverage, and there would be huge scope for avoidance.

  Pension Payment Tax Relief
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the yield, in each of years 2002–03 and 2003–04 as a result of the abolition from 6 April 2001 of the ability to carry forward entitlement to pension payment tax relief for up to six years. [114762]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The proposal to remove the carry forward facility is intended to simplify pension administration not to raise revenue. It is part of a package of measures designed to increase pension take up. We do not expect the removal of carry forward to save tax relief.

  Charities
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mechanism will replace tax credits in giving financial support to charities; and if he will make a statement. [114335]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The reform of corporation tax announced in 1997 will generate greater prosperity for businesses and those who invest in them. The withdrawal of payable tax credits on charities' dividend income did not come into effect until April 1999 and charities will receive generous compensation on a tapering basis in order to adjust, at a cost to the Exchequer of around £1.1 billion, for a further five years. The "Getting Britain Giving" package of measures which is being introduced in April, is estimated by the charity sector to be worth some £350 million a year to charities.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the period 2 May 1997 to 29 February 2000 what was(a) the number of occasions on which couriers were used to distribute news releases from his Department and (b) the total cost of using couriers to distribute news releases. [113968]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: The Treasury press office does not use couriers to distribute press releases. Press releases are distributed by the Central Office of Information (COI) through fax and electronic means. However, before the financial year 1999–2000, couriers were used to deliver releases to COI, who would then use their various delivery methods. The costs for the period from 2 May 1997, until the Treasury abandoned this practice in the financial year 1999–2000 and decided to rely on electronic means, are as follows:
  190W
  1997/98—229 press releases at £40 per distribution totalling £9,160 (from 2 May till the end of the financial year);

  1998/99—269 press releases at £50 per distribution which totalled £13,450.

  Couriers would now be used only in exceptional circumstances and do not form a regular press office cost.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [113994]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: The Treasury distributes its new releases by fax and electronic means through the Central Office of Information (COI). The COI issues releases to organisations held on mailing lists that have developed over time. Distribution will vary according to the subject concerned. Since there are over 2,000 organisations on the lists, it is not possible to re-organise them into national, regional, local newspapers and media bodies without incurring disproportionately high costs.

  Cancer Statistics
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list by income decile in the UK the number of cancer deaths for each type of cancer for each year from 1992; and if he will make a statement; [114172]

  (2) if he will list the number and type of cancers in people (a) in the UK as a whole, (b) on low incomes and (c) who are unemployed for the last available year; and if he will make a statement. [114175]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answers 13 March 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 15 March 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary questions about cancers in people on low incomes and by income decile. I am replying in Dr Holt's absence.
  Information on income is not requested when a death is registered or a cancer registration is made and so this information is not centrally available.
  Employment status is not available to all of the regional cancer registries and it is consequently not possible to present the number of new cases of cancer by type for persons unemployed at the time of cancer registration.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 2000,
  191W
  Official Report, column 109W, on the nuclear industry, if he will list (a) the installation concerned, (b) the name of the company and (c) the date the reactor shutdown began and the duration of it along with the reasons for the shutdown. [113350]

  Load factors and unplanned shutdowns at magnox and advance gas-cooled reactor (AGR) power stations during 1999

  Nuclear plant/reactor

  Station load factor Percentage

  Start date

  Days

  Primary cause of shutdown

  BNFL—magnox

  Bradwell

  R1

  31

  13 February 1999

  3

  Nuclear plant

  21 April 1999

  254

  Nuclear plant

  R2

  7 February 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  25 April 1999

  91

  Precautionary measure

  2 August 1999

  2

  Nuclear plant

  18 August 1999

  135

  Nuclear plant

  Calderhall

  R1

  76

  23 June 1999

  1

  Conventional plant

  5 November 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  R2

  5 November 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  R3

  8 October 1999

  2

  Nuclear plant

  R4

  9 March 1999

  3

  Nuclear plant

  Chapelcross

  R1

  81

  None

  R2

  14 September 1999

  6

  Nuclear plant

  Dungeness A

  R1

  89

  None

  R2

  11 February 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  20 July 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  2 November 1999

  2

  Conventional plant

  Hinkley A

  R1

  32

  10 March 1999

  6

  Nuclear plant

  16 April 1999

  259

  Conventional plant

  R2

  7 February 1999

  2

  Conventional plant

  16 April 1999

  161

  Conventional plant

  3 December 1999

  28

  Nuclear plant

  Oldbury

  R1

  87

  12 April 1999

  2

  Nuclear plant

  28 July 1999

  2

  Conventional plant

  15 September 1999

  5

  Conventional plant

  18 October 1999

  5

  Conventional plant

  R2

  20 August 1999

  26

  Nuclear plant

  7 October 1999

  8

  Conventional plant

  Sizewell A

  R1

  67

  27 January 1999

  2

  Conventional plant

  R2

  12 June 1999

  10

  Conventional plant

  29 August 1999

  7

  Nuclear plant

  Wylfa

  R1

  83

  None

  R2

  14 December 1999

  4

  Nuclear plant

  British Energy—AGR

  Dungeness B

  R21

  37

  13 January 1999

  4

  Nuclear plant

  3 August 1999

  5

  Nuclear plant

  5 September 1999

  118

  Conventional plant

  R22

  12 February 1999

  17

  Conventional plant

  17 March 1999

  4

  Conventional plant

  28 August 1999

  7

  Conventional plant

  26 September 1999

  0

  Nuclear plant

  20 November 1999

  42

  Conventional plant

  192W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The information is contained in the table. All shutdowns are publicly reported in the power station fortnightly newsletter, which is circulated to the local media and members of the sites' Local Community Liaison Committee.
  193W

  Load factors and unplanned shutdowns at magnox and advance gas-cooled reactor (AGR) power stations during 1999

  Nuclear plant/reactor

  Station load factor Percentage

  Start date

  Days

  Primary cause of shutdown

  Hartlepool

  R1

  88

  21 May 1999

  2

  Conventional plant

  19 June 1999

  1

  Conventional plant

  R2

  3 February 1999

  1

  Conventional plant

  31 March 1999

  1

  Conventional plant

  18 July 1999

  9

  Nuclear plant

  19 July 1999

  0

  Nuclear plant

  Heysham 1

  R1

  80

  27 December 1998

  3

  Conventional plant

  6 November 1999

  1

  Nuclear plant

  R2

  16 January 1999

  4

  Conventional plant

  16 May 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  22 May 1999

  1

  Conventional plant

  23 May 1999

  5

  Conventional plant

  2 July 1999

  13

  Conventional plant

  3 August 1999

  1

  Conventional plant

  Heysham 2

  R7

  65

  20 October 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  9 December 1999

  23

  Conventional plant

  R8

  27 December 1998

  3

  Conventional plant

  9 June 1999

  17

  Conventional plant

  16 July 1999

  140

  Conventional plant

  5 November 1999

  0

  Conventional plant

  Hinkley Pt.B

  R3

  76

  27 May 1999

  2

  Conventional plant

  18 June 1999

  5

  Conventional plant

  28 June 1999

  6

  Conventional plant

  4 July 1999

  7

  Nuclear plant

  12 July 1999

  1

  Conventional plant

  17 July 1999

  11

  Conventional plant

  16 October 1999

  5

  Conventional plant

  10 November 1999

  9

  Conventional plant

  25 November 1999

  16

  Conventional plant

  14 December 1999

  2

  Conventional plant

  R4

  2 October 1999

  0.2

  Conventional plant

  HunterstonB

  R3

  86

  27 December 1998

  6

  Conventional plant

  5 March 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  30 July 1999

  2

  Conventional plant

  22 October 1999

  3

  Nuclear plant

  R4

  27 December 1998

  9

  Conventional plant

  11 March 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  12 August 1999

  5

  Conventional plant

  9 November 1999

  14

  Nuclear plant

  17 December 1999

  0.5

  Conventional plant

  Torness

  R1

  93.5

  None

  R2

  7 November 1999

  7

  Conventional plant

  Notes:

  1. Station load factors: percentage of maximum possible output for each site (if operational 24 hours a day, 365 days a year). The figures include both planned and unplanned outages.

  2. Reactor numbers: The numbering of reactors is a matter for the company.

  3. Conventional plant: Plant common to all types of power station, eg turbines.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 2000,Official Report column 109W, on the nuclear industry, for what percentage of time each nuclear reactor which was involved in the 78 unplanned shutdowns was in use in 1999 out of its possible maximum operating time. [113351]
  194W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The information is contained in the table. The "load factor" figures show the power stations output as a percentage of its maximum possible output if it was on line 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, The figures also include planned outages for refuelling and maintenance.
  195W

  Load Factors and unplanned shutdowns at magnox and advance gas-cooled reactor (AGR) power stations during 1999

  Reactor

  Station load factor Percentage

  Start date

  Days

  Primary cause of shutdown

  BNFL

  magnox

  Bradwell

  R1

  31

  13 February 1999

  3

  Nuclear plant

  21 April 1999

  254

  Nuclear plant

  R2

  7 February 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  25 April 1999

  91

  Precautionary measure

  2 August 1999

  2

  Nuclear plant

  18 August 1999

  135

  Nuclear plant

  Calderhall

  R1

  76

  23 June 1999

  1

  Conventional plant

  5 November 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  R2

  5 November 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  R3

  8 October 1999

  2

  Nuclear plant

  R4

  9 March 1999

  3

  Nuclear plant

  Chapelcross

  RI

  81

  0

  R2

  14 September 1999

  6

  Nuclear plant

  Dungeness A

  R1

  89

  0

  R2

  11 February 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  20 July 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  2 November 1999

  2

  Conventional plant

  Hinkley A

  R1

  32

  10 March 1999

  6

  Nuclear plant

  16 April 1999

  259

  Conventional plant

  R2

  7 February 1999

  2

  Conventional plant

  16 April 1999

  161

  Conventional plant

  3 December 1999

  28

  Nuclear plant

  Odbury

  R1

  87

  12 April 1999

  2

  Nuclear plant

  28 July 1999

  2

  Conventional plant

  15 September 1999

  5

  Conventional plant

  18 October 1999

  5

  Conventional plant

  R2

  20 August 1999

  26

  Nuclear plant

  7 October 1999

  8

  Conventional plant

  Sizewell A

  R1

  67

  27 January 1999

  2

  Conventional plant

  R2

  12 June 1999

  10

  Conventional plant

  29 August 1999

  7

  Nuclear plant

  Wylfa

  R1

  83

  0

  R2

  14 December 1999

  4

  Nuclear plant

  British Energy

  AGR

  DungenessB

  R21

  37

  13 January 1999

  4

  Nuclear plant

  3 August 1999

  5

  Nuclear plant

  5 September 1999

  118

  Conventional plant

  R22

  12 February 1999

  17

  Conventional plant

  17 March 1999

  4

  Conventional plant

  28 August 1999

  7

  Conventional plant

  26 September 1999

  0

  Nuclear plant

  20 November 1999

  42

  Conventional plant

  Hartlepool

  R1

  88

  21 May 1999

  2

  Conventional plant

  19 June 1999

  1

  Conventional plant

  R2

  3 February 1999

  1

  Conventional plant

  31 March 1999

  1

  Conventional plant

  18 July 1999

  9

  Nuclear plant

  19 July 1999

  0

  Nuclear plant

  Heysham 1

  R1

  80

  27 December 1998

  3

  Conventional plant

  6 November 1999

  1

  Nuclear plant

  R2

  16 January 1999

  4

  Conventional plant

  16 May 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  22 May 1999

  1

  Conventional plant

  23 May 1999

  5

  Conventional plant

  2 July 1999

  13

  Conventional plant

  3 August 1999

  1

  Conventional plant

  196W 197W

  Load Factors and unplanned shutdowns at magnox and advance gas-cooled reactor (AGR) power stations during 1999

  Reactor

  Station load factor Percentage

  Start date

  Days

  Primary cause of shutdown

  Heysham 2

  R7

  65

  20 October 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  9 December 1999

  23

  Conventional plant

  R8

  27 December 1998

  3

  Conventional plant

  9 June 1999

  17

  Conventional plant

  16 July 1999

  140

  Conventional plant

  5 November 1999

  0

  Conventional plant

  Hinkley Pt.B

  R3

  76

  27 May 1999

  2

  Conventional plant

  18 June 1999

  5

  Conventional plant

  28 June 1999

  6

  Conventional plant

  4 July 1999

  7

  Nuclear plant

  12 July 1999

  1

  Conventional plant

  17 July 1999

  11

  Conventional plant

  16 October 1999

  5

  Conventional plant

  10 November 1999

  9

  Conventional plant

  25 November 1999

  16

  Conventional plant

  14 December 1999

  2

  Conventional plant

  R4

  2 October 1999

  0.2

  Conventional plant

  HunterstonB

  R3

  86

  27 December 1998

  6

  Conventional plant

  5 March 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  30 July 1999

  2

  Conventional plant

  22 October 1999

  3

  Nuclear plant

  R4

  27 December 1998

  9

  Conventional plant

  11 March 1999

  3

  Conventional plant

  12 August 1999

  5

  Conventional plant

  9 November 1999

  14

  Nuclear plant

  17 December 1999

  0.5

  Conventional plant

  Torness

  R1

  93.5

  0

  R2

  17 November 1999

  7

  Conventional plant

  Notes:

  1. Station Load Factors: per cent. of maximum possible output for each site (if operational 24 hours a day, 365 days a year). The figures include both planned and unplanned outages.

  2. Reactor Numbers: The numbering of reactors is a matter for the company.

  3. Conventional Plant: Plant common to all types of power station, eg turbines.

  Automatic Teller Machines
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will assess the benefits of ensuring that cash withdrawals from automatic teller machines located in post offices are not subject to bank charges. [113905]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend considers that the imposition of charges for cash withdrawals from automatic teller machines will impact disproportionately on the socially excluded and those in rural areas. People on fixed budgets, particularly pensioners and the unemployed, should not suffer high charges to withdraw small amounts of cash. If charges are to be introduced, we will ensure that consumers know what they are before they proceed with a transaction. If the banks do not do this voluntarily, my right hon. Friend has powers under the Prices Act 1974 to compel them.

  I understand from the Post Office that commercial and contract arrangements with the proposed partners for the installation of 3,000 more cash machines at post offices have not yet been finalised. Access and charging arrangements will, in the first instance, be commercial matters for the Post Office and its partners.

  Post Office Services
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to expand banking and financial services in the national network of post offices; and if he will make a statement. [114909]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Horizon project to equip the post office network with a modern on-line IT platform, towards the capital costs of which the Government is contributing nearly £500 million, will enable the Post Office to improve its services to existing clients and to attract new clients and services. In particular, Horizon offers the potential to move into automated network banking on an agency basis enabling post offices to restore a vital service to many rural areas and smaller communities. The Post Office already has arrangements with Girobank/Alliance and Leicester, LloydsTSB and the Co-operative Bank and they are currently in discussion with other High Street banks. An agreement has recently been reached on a pilot scheme in Cornwall to offer counter services on behalf of Barclays.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is his policy to regard energy from waste schemes as renewable energy; and if he will make a statement. [114148]
  199W
  Mrs. Liddell
  Yes. Wastes produced by households, industry and commerce pose a difficult, costly and potentially environmentally damaging problem. Our draft national waste strategy provides for waste reduction, materials recycling and energy recovery. Where there is no better alternative, using waste materials to produce energy can reduce environmental problems and at the same time save fossil fuels.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list(a) the offices (i) owned and (ii) rented by his Department and its agencies in Scotland and (b) the number of staff (y) employed and (z) that can be accommodated (1) in total and (2) at each site. [114239]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is:

  (a) Location1

  (b)(i) Staff

  (b)(ii) Approximate potential capacity

  DTI Headquarters

  Atholl House, Aberdeen

  65

  160

  376 Gilmerton Road, Edinburgh

  2,320

  20

  Tay House, Glasgow

  51

  80

  Employment Tribunals Service

  Aberdeen

  3

  4

  13 Albert Square, Dundee

  3

  4

  52–56 Melville Street, Edinburgh

  10

  10

  Engle Building, Glasgow

  30

  36

  Total

  162

  314

  1 Excluding offices owned or rented by other Departments where DTI or its agencies are minor occupiers

  2 Number of contractors

  3 No DTI staff are employed at this location

  IT Strategy
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made with the development of the Government's information technology strategy; and if he will make a statement. [113897]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on 14 February 2000, Official Report, column 353W.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Press Releases
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for the period 2 May 1997 to 29 February 2000 what was(a) the number of occasions on which couriers were used to distribute news releases from her Department and (b) the total cost of using couriers to distribute news releases. [113979]

  Clare Short
  We do not use couriers to distribute news releases.
  200W
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the(a) national, (b) regional and (c) local newspapers and media bodies to which her Department sent news releases during the period 2 May 1997 to 29 February 2000. [113990]

  Clare Short
  We do not keep records of all newspapers or media bodies to which press releases are sent, and it would be disproportionately expensive to seek to identify a full list. However, departmental press releases are available to the press through the News Distribution Service managed by the COI, and are also available through our internet site. More targeted distribution of press releases varies depending on the subject and content of the press release involved.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) the offices (i) owned and (ii) rented by her Department and its agencies in Scotland and (b) the number of staff (y) employeed and (z) that can be accommodated (1) in total and (2) at each site. [114236]

  Clare Short
  My Department owns Abercrombie House in East Kilbride. It can accommodate 485 people, which equates to the proposed staffing levels for 2000–01. We also rent the property at 43 Fairfield Place, East Kilbride. This is an unstaffed file store.

DEFENCE

  RAF Personnel Management Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the RAF Personnel Management Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111740]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the RAF Personnel Management Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from Alan Cowpe to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 15 March 2000:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the RAF Personnel Management Agency's performance against its Key Targets; the Air Secretary is out of the office on duty.
  The information requested is contained in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts 1998–99, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. I enclose for your convenience, however, a copy of the relevant pages which summarise performance against the Targets. You will see that of the Agency's five Targets, four were achieved, the exception being one which was overtaken by the SDR.

  Performance Against Key Targets

  Overview
  The RAF PMA has achieved 4 out of its 5 Key Targets. Key Target 3, which required the expansion of the active strength of the Reserve Air Forces to exceed 2,900 by 31 March 1999, was in effect overtaken by the Strategic Defence Review which placed a temporary cap on the recruitment of Reserves and disbanded some reservist squadrons. Work now continues to define a new establishment for the Reserves.
  201W
  Performance

  Key Target 1a

  To fill peacetime established posts, as a ratio of the overall manning level, to the following percentages:

  Percentage

  1998–99

  91.7

  1999–2000

  91.8

  2000–01

  91.9

  2001–02

  92.0

  Performance

  92.3

  Key Target 1b
  To man War, Crisis and MOD authorised Unestablished tasks to the following percentage: 95%
  Performance—99.9%

  Key Target 2
  To ensure that 80% or more of personnel given a posting that qualifies for a domestic move receive the required notice:
  Performance—80.5%

  Key Target 3
  To meet the Air Force Board's target to increase the number of operationally employable reservists to 2900 by 31 March 1999.
  Performance—Target discontinued

  Key Target 4
  To ensure that the percentage variation between the actual average trained strength and that forecast by the Agency is no greater than: +/- 1%
  Performance—0.38%

  Key Target 5
  To deliver the 3% savings that accrue from the efficiencies planned for the Financial Year 1998–1999.
  Performance—Spend contained within reduced cash allocation.

  RAF Maintenance Group Defence
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the RAF Maintenance Group Defence for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111741]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: The RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency (MGDA) no longer exists and was, in large measure, absorbed into the new Defence Aviation Repair Agency on 1 April 1999. Performance against the targets was covered in the 1998–99 MGDA Annual Report, which was placed in the Library of the House. Only one target for 1998–99 was not fully achieved.

  To achieve 98 per cent. of the aero-systems and electronics maintenance task to standard and on time
  Achievement 96.6 per cent. There were minor problems with spares and delays in receiving repair information.

  The targets fully achieved were:

  To keep within the agency's allocated budget
  Achieved.

  To achieve the efficiency targets specified in the Logistics Command Management Plan
  Achieved.

  To achieve planned reductions in Service manpower totals
  Achieved.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people from(a) Paisley, South, (b) Scotland and (c) the UK are serving in Her Majesty's armed forces. [113553]

  Mr. Spellar
  Examination of available personal records of currently serving personnel1 has revealed the following information:

  Area

  Naval Service

  Army

  RAF

  (a) Paisley

  26

  2—

  370

  (b) Scotland

  2,552

  21,374

  5,769

  (c) UK

  442,902

  108,926

  51,450

  1 Naval Service data are based on current place of residence. About 29,000 Naval Personnel (some 67 per cent. of total strength) personal records include reference to current place of residence. Army and RAF details are based on nationality at birth taken from personal records of all Army and RAF personnel.

  2 Army records do not show this level of detail.

  3 RAF figures cover Paisley as a whole and not just Paisley, South.

  4 Naval Service total strength as at 1 February 2000 was 42,902, but this includes an unspecified number of Commonwealth citizens and Republic of Ireland nationals.

  Bowman VHF System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the impact on(a) the cost to his Department and (b) the time scale for completion of the contract of ITT 's take-over from Racal of the Bowman VHF system; and if he will make a statement. [113906]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 15 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about Bowman cost and timescale. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  ITT Defence has been selected by Archer Communications Systems Ltd (ACSL) as preferred supplier to provide the VHF radio as part of ACSL's preparations to bid for the main production contract later this year. Precise details of the selection process are a matter for the Prime Contractor. However, the selection was made with a view to meeting the requirement at minimum cost, minimum risk and maximum speed of programme.

  Radios
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many AN/PRC-138 125W HF radios his Department plans to acquire; and if he will make a statement. [113960]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 15 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence on how many AN/PRC-138 125W radios the Department plan to acquire. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA).

  203W
  The DPA has procured a total of ninety AN/PRC-138 patrol radio equipments. Of these, sixty-nine were procured with 125W amplifiers, three were procured with 150W amplifiers and eighteen were procured in their patrol (20W) configuration. The Department has no immediate plans to acquire any more AN/PRC-138 radios (in any configuration) though these equipments could be considered for future programmes if they were technically suitable and represented the best value for money.

  Transport Aircraft
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Puma helicopters the(a) Antonov 124–100 and (b) C-17 can carry; [114090]

  (2) what is the range of the (a) C-17 and (b) Antonov 124–100 with full payload, without refuelling. [114092]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, dated 15 March 2000:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence in which you ask how many Puma helicopters the Antonov 124–100 and Boeing C-17 aircraft can carry and what is the range of the Boeing C-17 and Antonov 124–100 with a full payload, without refuelling. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  We have carried four Puma helicopters in the Antonov An 124–100 and on the basis of information publicly available the Boeing C-17 is capable of carrying three, although some disassembly of the helicopters is required in both cases.
  On the basis of information publicly available, the C-17 has an approximate un-refuelled range of 2400nm, at a maximum payload capability of 77 tonnes and the military limit of 2.25g, whereas the Antonov An 124–100 has an un-refuelled range of 1790nm, at a maximum payload capability of 120 tonnes and the civil limit of 2.5g.

  Relief Operation (Mozambique)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if(a) the US C-17 and (b) the C5A Galaxy aircraft were available to support the UK relief operation in Mozambique. [114093]

  Mr. Hoon
  We concluded, from recent experience, that these aircraft would not be available in sufficient time for the UK relief operation in Mozambique.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria were used in making the decision to use the Antonov 124–100 to carry supplies to Mozambique. [114089]

  Mr. Hoon
  No request was received to carry supplies to Mozambique. The request was for the movement of four Puma helicopters for rescue purposes. There are only three aircraft types able to carry Puma without the necessity to remove significant components from the helicopter; of these, we judged that only the Antonov An 124–100 was available within the required timeframe.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he gave to leasing the C-17 for the Mozambique operation. [114091]
  204W
  Mr. Hoon
  It is only possible to purchase or lease the C-17 from the manufacturer or to charter from the United States Air Force. Our recent experience of such options suggested that there was insufficient time for any of them to have been exploited for the Mozambique operation.

  Military Aircraft Exercises
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military aircraft exercises in the South of Scotland Tactical Training Area in the last five years which have involved aircraft from air forces other than the RAF. [114188]

  Mr. Spellar
  None of the three Tactical Training Areas in the United Kingdom is made available for use by foreign air forces.

  HMS 'Dumbarton Castle'
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS 'Dumbarton Castle' is due to end her service with the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement. [114506]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS 'Dumbarton Castle' is due to end her service with the Royal Navy in 2012.

  Future Naval Deployments
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future naval deployments in the south-west Atlantic. [114505]

  Mr. Spellar
  We will continue to conduct regular Naval patrols in the South West Atlantic.

  Masonic Organisations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his answer of 21 February 2000,Official Report, column 738W, to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on Masonic organisations, if the act of administering an oath to a Loyal Orange Lodge or allowing an oath to be administered on his Department's premises or property is considered to be among those actions that encourage or promote membership of a secretive organisation for the purposes of the Joint Service Defence Council Instruction on Membership of Organisations such as the Freemasons. [114648]

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

  Procurement
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all prime contractors and major subcontractors for the(a) CV (F), (b) Future Carrier Borne Aircraft, (c) Type 45 destroyer, (d) strategic sealift, (e) Bowman, (f) Tracer, (g) Bvraam, (h) Asraam, (i) Hercules Rolling Replacement-tranche 2 and (j) short-term strategic airlift. [113889]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  205W
  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Robert Key, dated 15 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about prime and sub-contractors for a range of projects. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.

  The information requested is as follows:

  CV(F)
  Contracts for the CVF Assessment Phase were awarded in November 1999 to BAE and Thomson-CSF. BAE subsequently merged with their major sub-contractor. Marconi Electronic Systems, to form BAE SYSTEMS. Thomson-CSF's major sub-contractors include British Maritime Technology Defence Services Limited, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

  Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA)
  The current planning assumption for FCBA is the US joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The Boeing Military Aircraft Company and Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Company are the competing Prime Contractors in the current phase of the programme, which will lead to a US down-selection to one Prime Contractor in the Spring of 2001. In addition, Pratt and Whitney are developing the engine which will be provided as US Government Furnished Equipment to the selected Prime Contractor. The major UK sub contractors to the US Primes are:

  Boeing:

  BAE SYSTEMS

  Messier Dowry

  Rolls-Royce

  Flight Refuelling

  Martin Baker

  TI Industries (Dowty Division)

  Smiths Industries

  Lockheed Martin

  Rolls-Royce

  BAE SYSTEMS

  Flight Refuelling

  Meggitt Avionics

  Smiths Industries

  Pratt and Whitney

  Rolls-Royce

  Callender Aeropart

  Type 45 destroyer
  The nominated Prime Contractor for the Type 45 Destroyer is BAE SYSTEMS. Subject to satisfactory progress, both Marconi Marine (YSL) Ltd and Vosper Thornycroft will be subcontractors involved in the Demonstration and First of Class Manufacture phase. A wide range of other companies could become major sub-contractors subject to the outcome of competitive selection processes yet to be completed by the Prime Contractor.

  Strategic sealift
  There are four consortia bidding to provide the MOD's strategic sealift service under PFI arrangements. They are:

  Novomar S A

  The Maersk Company

  Andrew Weir Shipping

  The Sealion Consortium

  Subcontractor arrangements have yet to be decided.

  206W
  Bowman
  The current BOWMAN prime contractor is Archer Communications Systems Ltd (ACSL). Potential major sub-contractors include:

  ITT Defence

  BAe SYSTEMS

  Racal

  Cogent

  Hunting Engineering

  Tracer
  The industrial consortia competing in TRACER Project Definition/Advanced Technology Demonstration (PD/ATD) Phase are:
  ?SIKA International', a joint venture company comprising BAE SYSTEMS and Lockheed Martin, with Vickers Defence System and General Dynamics Land Systems.
  The LANCER consortium, an alliance between BAE SYSTEMS (the prime contractor), Raytheon SC, United Defence Limited Partnership (UDLP) and Alvis Vehicles.

  BVRAAM
  The BVRAAM programme is in the pre-contract competition stage and therefore prime contractorship has still to be determined. Proposals have been received from:
  Matra BAe Dynamics (UK) Ltd, supported by Matra BAe Dynamics, France, Alenia-Marconi Systems SpA, CASA, DASA-LFK, SAAB Dynamics and Bayern Chemie with major proposed sub contractors Royal Ordnance, Thomson Detexis and Fiarey Hydraulics Ltd who are offering METEOR, and
  Raytheon Systems Ltd, Harlow, supported by Raytheon Missile Systems, with major proposed sub-contractors Atlantic Research Company, Raytheon Systems Ltd, Glenrothes, Diehl, Alliant Technology, Thomson Thorn and Shorts, Belfast who are offering FMRAAM and ERAAM.

  ASRAAM
  Prime Contractor: Matra BAe Dynamics (UK) Ltd
  Major Sub Contractors:
  Seeker: Raytheon Systems Co
  Sensor: LFK-Lenkflugkorpersysteme GmbH
  Fuze: Thomson-Thorn Missile Electronics
  Warhead: TDW-Gesellschaft fur verteidigunstechnische Wirksysteme mbH
  Motor: Royal Ordnance plc
  Acuator: Lucas Aerospace Ltd
  Container: SAAB

  Hercules Rolling Replacement Tranche 2
  The decision on the Hercules Rolling Replacement tranche 2 (HRR2) has yet to be made and therefore no prime contractors or sub-contractors have been selected for this programme. We hope to be in a position to make a decision in the early part of this year.

  Short Term Strategic Airlift (STSA)
  The decision on the Short Term Strategic Airlift (STSA) has yet to be made and therefore no prime contractors or sub-contractors have been selected for this programme. We hope to be in a position to make a decision in the early part of this year.

  Leased Sites
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military establishments within(a) Devon and (b) the Torbay constituency that are occupied leasehold, indicating the dates for the expiry of the leases. [114552]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following leased sites are in Devon.
  207W

  Site

  Expiry date

  Britannia Royal Naval College, Dartmouth

  Lease of Fundus (seabed)—29 September 2055

  South Yard Fundus, HM Naval Base, Devonport

  Lease of Fundus (seabed)—29 September 2081

  Zeta Berth Amphibious Trials Unit, Instow

  Lease of Funds (seabed)—1 June 2003

  Facilities at Oreston for HM Naval Base, Devonport

  Lease 29 March 2893

  Careers Information Office—Fountain House, Exeter

  Lease 13 September 2004

  Pilgrim House, Defence Estates

  Lease 24 March 2002

  Point Terrace, Exmouth for CTC Lympstone

  Lease 23 June 2008

  The Camber Milbay Docks for Stonehouse Bks

  Lease 1 January 2021

  There are no leased sites in Torbay and there are 20 other minor leases covering weather monitoring and navigational aids.

  The Braunton Burrows and Woodbury common training areas are held under licence.

  Race Relations
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on the armed forces of extending to all duties of public authorities the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 in respect of(a) direct and (b) indirect discrimination. [114540]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: As the 1976 Race Relations Act applies already to the Armed Forces our assessment is that the extension of the Act to all public authorities should have minimal effect. Unlike other public authorities, such as the Police and Prison Service, the Armed Forces are not, other than in the broadest sense, engaged in delivering a public service to the community. We continue to act decisively to remove any direct or indirect discrimination on racial grounds. A great deal has been and continues to be undertaken across the Armed Forces to promote racial equality and diversity.

  HM Naval Base Clyde
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the sandbagged oil leak at HM Naval Base Clyde at Coulport has been reported to the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency; and what steps are being taken to repair the leak. [114233]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency were made aware of the incident on 14 May 1999. The fuel oil ring main at Coulport has been shut down and drained to prevent any further leaks.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to monitor the safety of commercial vessels near HM Naval Base Clyde. [114242]

  Mr. Spellar
  HM Naval Base Clyde consists of the Dockyard Ports of the Gareloch, Loch Long (which includes Coulport) and the Holy Loch. All vessel movements, commercial or military, in the Dockyard Port are controlled and monitored by the Queen's Harbour Master for the Clyde Dockyard Ports thus ensuring the safety of all vessels near HM Naval Base Clyde.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the offices owned or rented by his Department and its agencies in Scotland for civilian use and (b) the number of staff (i) employed and (ii) that can be accommodated (1) in total and (2) at each site. [114234]
  208W
  Dr. Moonie
  Information about building usage and the number of staff that could be accommodated at MOD sites is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For an indication of the number of staff employed at different locations in Scotland I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 7 March 2000,Official Report, columns 650–51W.

  Land Mines (Belarus)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the conference on stockpiling of land mines in Belarus. [113366]

  Mr. Spellar
  A Workshop on Humanitarian Demining and Stockpile Elimination took place in Minsk on 6–7 March 2000. It was hosted by the Belarus Support Centre for Associations and Foundations, together with the United Nations Representative Office in Minsk and the Belarussian Ministries of Defence and Foreign Affairs. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the scope of the land mine problem in Belarus and develop possible solutions. Two UK military officers and representatives of 12 other countries also attended.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that targets set under the Producer Responsibility Obligation (Packaging Waste) Regulations will be achieved; and if he will make a statement. [113422]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 set out measures which are designed to achieve the UK's mandatory EC Directive recovery and recycling targets which the EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste requires the UK to meet in 2001. A number of amendments have been made to the Regulations which are designed to contribute further to our achievement of the targets, in particular higher interim recovery and recycling targets for 1999 and 2000 which came into force on 1 January 2000.

  I will continue to monitor progress carefully as the basis for an early decision on whether the targets for 2001 are set at the right level to achieve the Directive targets. In particular, it will be important to take account of information due shortly on the numbers of smaller businesses registering for the first time this year as a result of changes in the turnover threshold.

  Homelessness
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the total number of households(a) nationally and (b) for each London local authority in respect of which local authorities accepted a housing duty where the cause of

  Total priority need acceptances

  Number of households where the main reason for the loss of the last settled home was the ending of an assured shorthold tenancy

  1997

  1998

  1999

  1997

  1998

  1999

  England

  Barking and Dagenham

  140

  226

  215

  9

  14

  19

  Barnet

  856

  986

  1402

  166

  231

  172

  Bexley

  173

  405

  246

  69

  133

  56

  Brent

  1,300

  2771

  969

  227

  2182

  162

  Bromley

  578

  703

  809

  110

  139

  129

  Camden

  1,345

  1,571

  1,429

  84

  58

  57

  City of London

  38

  63

  60

  1

  2

  0

  Croydon

  2745

  791

  1,157

  277

  113

  193

  Ealing

  979

  1,036

  989

  211

  218

  75

  Enfield

  2551

  781

  752

  285

  105

  155

  Greenwich

  1,191

  1,406

  1,302

  133

  189

  199

  Hackney

  2532

  2396

  3184

  248

  232

  317

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  584

  590

  758

  39

  55

  65

  Haringey

  2882

  963

  1,388

  23

  3

  6

  Harrow

  618

  713

  713

  130

  125

  109

  Havering

  272

  382

  2328

  34

  38

  241

  Hillingdon

  915

  941

  772

  138

  143

  142

  Hounslow

  930

  1,013

  2567

  118

  221

  299

  Islington

  960

  2812

  1,312

  68

  276

  123

  Kensington and Chelsea

  598

  2429

  552

  73

  251

  80

  Kingston upon Thames

  374

  2310

  278

  49

  260

  22

  Lambeth

  2584

  946

  1,212

  24

  8

  16

  Lewisham

  1382

  1,038

  1,241

  139

  172

  108

  Merton

  216

  185

  251

  22

  12

  15

  Newham

  4—

  2921

  1,687

  4—

  2145

  189

  Redbridge

  287

  314

  438

  69

  69

  110

  Richmond upon Thames

  544

  621

  503

  77

  97

  62

  Southwark

  2660

  1,071

  21,209

  251

  73

  295

  Sutton

  293

  290

  410

  59

  57

  40

  Tower Hamlets

  2728

  1,010

  1,147

  225

  48

  34

  Waltham Forest

  795

  1,054

  3261

  91

  242

  380

  Wandsworth

  454

  3129

  1391

  3

  30

  314

  Westminster

  1,144

  2952

  1,199

  239

  2266

  196

  Total

  102,410

  104,490

  104,770

  13,500

  15,390

  14,170

  1 Data for two quarters only

  2 Data for three quarters only

  3 Data for one quarter only

  4 No Returns

  Note:

  England figures include estimates for non-responding authorities

  Source:

  DETR Quarterly P1E: Households dealt with under the homelessness provisions of 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts

  Council Tax (Second Homes)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate has been made of the revenue lost to local authorities through the reduced council tax on second homes. [114187]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Second homes and other dwellings which are no-one's main residence for whatever reason receive a 50 per cent. discount in council tax. Around 500,000 households in England qualify for the discount at a cost of some £164 million.
  210W
  homelessness was the termination of a private sector tenancy for (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [114096]

  Mr. Mullin
  The available information, relating to households accepted as homeless and in priority need under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts, is set out in the table:

  In general, if a local authority has a reduced tax base because it has a high proportion of dwellings subject to a discount or exemption, it will receive more grant to compensate.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [113992]
  211W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: All DETR news releases are distributed to the media through the Central Office of Information (COI). The COI target all the main national and regional newspapers, news agencies and broadcasting organisations through their electronic news distribution service. The COI also distributes news releases via fax to media organisations. News release distribution relies on the subject and content of the specific press release. All DETR news releases are available on the Internet and are also distributed via e-mail.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for the period 2 May 1997 to 29 February 2000 what was(a) the number of occasions on which couriers were used to distribute news releases from his Department and (b) the total cost of using couriers to distribute news releases. [113966]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: The DETR does not use couriers to distribute news releases. News releases are distributed to the media through the Central Office of Information, by fax, by e-mail and through the Press Gallery at the House of Commons.

  Tree Preservation Orders
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will bring forward proposals to amend the law to allow tree preservation orders to be designated for defined areas as well as for individual trees. [114245]

  Mr. Mullin
  The law as it stands allows local authorities to use tree preservation orders to protect areas of trees as well as individual trees. Orders may also be used to protect groups of trees and woodlands.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the immunity of Crown land from tree preservation orders. [114244]

  Mr. Mullin
  Crown immunity from the planning system as a whole, including the tree preservation order system, will be removed when a suitable legislative opportunity arises. Under the current law, it is possible for local authorities to make tree preservation orders on Crown land, subject to the agreement of the Crown. Such orders ensure that trees are protected if the land falls into private hands.

  Business Rate
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received from trade bodies requesting business rate relief to be granted to licensed public houses in rural areas. [114342]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have recently received a substantial number of representations from the licensed trade asking that the 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief for village general stores and post offices be extended to village public houses. Although they were mainly from the licensees of public houses, we have received representations from the North West Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association and the Brighton and South Downs Branch of the Campaign for Real Ale.
  212W
  Village public houses and other businesses in qualifying rural settlements are already eligible for rate relief of up to 100 per cent., at the discretion of the local authority.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions as of 1 April 1999, which of the executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) were required to publish annual reports, (b) were required to publish annual accounts, (c) were subject to a full audit by the National Audit Office, (d) were under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Ombudsman or other ombudsmen, (e) had their own complaints procedure, (f) were required to observe the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, (g) possessed a register of members' interests, (h) allowed the public to inspect a register of members' interests, (i) were subject to a public right to attend board meetings or committee meetings, (j) were obliged to release reports of meetings, (k) were subject to a public right to inspect agendas of meetings, (l) were subject to a public right to see minutes of meetings, (m) were required to hold public meetings, (n) (i) maintained an Internet site and (ii) were developing an Internet site and (o) had been subject to a quinquennial review within the last year, including a continuing review. [114168]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The answers for the NDPBs in DETR are as follows:

  (a) All DETR's executive NDPBs are required to publish their Annual Reports, with the exception of the General Lighthouse Authorities, but there is a statutory requirement to produce the Accounts of the General Lighthouse Fund. The Annual Reports and Accounts of the individual Lighthouse Authorities are consolidated into the General Lighthouse Fund's Report and Accounts. The Department's advisory NDPBs either produce annual reports currently or plan to start producing one this year. Such reports are proportional to the body's size and scope.

  (b) All DETR's executive NDPBs are required to publish their annual accounts.

  (c) Where an executive NDPB's external auditor is the National Audit Office, then it is subject to a full audit by that body. For DETR, those are; the Audit Commission, the Countryside Commission, English Nature, the General Lighthouse Authorities and the General Lighthouse Fund, the Health and Safety Commission, the Health and Safety Executive, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, the London Regional Passengers Committee, the Local Government Commission, the eight Regional Development Agencies, and the Traffic Director for London. In some cases, the National Audit Office contract out the work to private sector auditors. The Local Government Residuary Body and the London Pensions Fund Authority are audited by the District Auditor. All DETR's other executive bodies are audited by private sector firms.

  (d) All DETR's executive NDPBs come under the remit of either the Parliamentary Ombudsman or the Local Government Ombudsman, with two exceptions:

  (i) The Audit Commission appoints auditors of the accounts of local authorities and NHS bodies in England and Wales, and undertakes value for money studies. Like the National Audit Office, it does not deal directly with the public, but it does have its own complaints procedure. While it will investigate

  213W
  complaints about the conduct of an audit, an audit that is found to have been properly conducted can only be reopened by a judicial review.

  (ii) The British Board of Agrément was established under the Companies Act. It provides independent assessment and certification of construction products and systems for which there are no recognised standards. Its only dealings with the public are with the construction industry, and these are commercial and contractual by nature and subject to contract law. It will cease to be an NDPB, becoming an autonomous body, on 1 April 1999.

  Those bodies that come under the jurisdiction of the Local Government Ombudsman are the five Housing Action Trusts (Castle Vale, Liverpool, Stonebridge, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest) and the London Pensions Fund Authority.

  (e) All our NDPBs have their own complaints procedure.

  (f) All executive NDPBs that come under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Ombudsman are formally required to observe the Code. Those that do not come under the Parliamentary Ombudsman's remit are nevertheless expected to apply the principles of the Code.

  (g) All the Department's executive NDPBs possess Registers, with the following exceptions: the General Lighthouse Authorities whose members are not appointed by Ministers; the Health and Safety Executive as the Commission is the body which has Board members appointed to it; and the Traffic Director for London, who is a Corporation Sole and does not have a Board. The following advisory NDPBs have Registers, which are available on request: the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the Advisory Committee on Packaging, the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, the Committee on Chemicals and Materials of Construction for use in Public Water Supply and Swimming Pools, the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards, the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, the Property Advisory Group, the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (on the Internet), the Sustainable Development Education Panel, the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development, and the Water Regulations Advisory Committee. It is the Department's policy that the remaining advisory bodies should have Registers in place.

  (h) All DETR's NDPBs which possess a Register make it available for inspection on request, or will do so in future.

  (i) None

  (j) None

  (k) None of DETR's NDPBs is subject to a public right to inspect agendas of meetings. However, the following executive and advisory NDPBs publish the agendas of their Board meetings and documents for meetings: the Countryside Commission, English Nature (but not Executive and Performance meeting papers), the Environment Agency (agendas only), the Health and Safety Commission/Executive, Housing Action Trusts (Castle Vale, Liverpool, Stonebridge, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest), the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and the London Regional Passengers
  214W
  Committee; the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the Export Action Group for Building Materials, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Sustainable Development Education Panel, and the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development.

  (l) None of DETR's NDPBs is subject to a public right to see minutes of meetings. However, the following executive and advisory NDPBs publish the minutes of their Board meetings on the Internet or make them available in paper form or do both: the Countryside Commission, English Nature (but not minutes of discussions on Executive and Performance meeting papers), the Environment Agency (summary only), the Health and Safety Commission/Executive, Housing Action Trusts (Castle Vale, Liverpool, Stonebridge, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest), the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, the Local Government Commission, and the London Regional Passengers Committee; the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the Committee on Chemicals and Materials for Use in Public Water Supplies and Swimming Pools, the Export Action Group for Building Materials, the Royal Commission on Environment Pollution, the Sustainable Development Education Panel, and the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development.

  (m) None of DETR's NDPBs is required to hold public meetings. However, many of the Department's bodies hold at least one annual open meeting; the Commission for the New Towns, Docklands Light Railway, the Countryside Commission, English Nature, English Partnerships, the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Commission/Executive, Housing Action Trusts, the Local Government Commission, the Local Government Residuary Body, the London Regional Passengers Committee, and the National Forest Company; the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development.

  (n) Most of DETR's executive NDPBs maintain an Internet website. The only exceptions are the Northern Lighthouse Board, Stonebridge and Waltham Forest Housing Action Trusts, the Housing Corporation, the London Pensions Fund Authority, the London Regional Passengers Committee and the National Forest Company. All either plan to get a website shortly or are considering getting one. Generally, information on advisory NDPBs is available on the Department's own website, but the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has its own website, and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development are planning to get their own sites.

  (o) From 1 May 1997 to 1 April 1999, the following NDPBs have been subject to a Financial Management and Policy Review: the British Board of Agrément, the Local Government Commission, the UK Ecolabelling Board, the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, and the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards. Ministers agreed that neither the British Board of Agrément nor the UK Ecolabelling Board should continue as executive NDPBs. Reviews of the Audit Commission, the Local Government Commission, the Darwin Advisory Committee and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution are under way at present.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the offices (i) owned and (ii) rented by his Department and its agencies in Scotland and (b) the number of staff (i) employed and (ii) that can be accommodated (1) in total and (2) at each site. [114240]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information is given in the table, based on the local property managers' response to the question:

  Office and Location

  Number of staff employed

  Number of staff that can be accommodated

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  Marine House, Aberdeen

  56

  84

  Glasgow M. O., Glasgow

  16

  16

  Leith M. O., Edinburgh

  4

  10

  Navy Buildings, Greenock

  30

  30

  Total

  106

  140

  DVLA

  Aberdeen

  10

  11

  Dundee

  11

  14

  Edinburgh

  29

  29

  Glasgow

  45

  53

  Inverness

  6

  7

  Total

  101

  114

  DSA

  Haymarket House, Edinburgh

  18

  23

  Boydstone Road, Glasgow

  4

  7

  DTC, Glasgow Road, Edinburgh

  1

  1

  DTC, Balgownie Road, Aberdeen

  2

  2

  Total

  25

  33

  DETR (C)

  Mulberry House, Edinburgh

  0

  10

  Total

  0

  10

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Grayfield House, Edinburgh

  5

  5

  HGVTS—Livingston

  25

  25

  Bishopbriggs HGVTS—Glasgow

  30

  30

  Kilmarnock HGVTS—Kilmarnock

  20

  20

  East Fortune HGVTS—East Fortune

  2

  2

  Charlesford HGVTS—Charlesford

  2

  2

  Kirkcaldy HGVTS—Kirkcaldy

  3

  3

  Lochgilphoad HGVTS—Lochgilphoad

  2

  2

  Perth HGVTS—Perth

  20

  20

  Montrose HGVTS—Montrose

  2

  2

  Fort William HGVTS—Fort William

  2

  2

  Aberdeen HGVTS—Aberdeen

  20

  20

  Keith HGVTS—Keith

  2

  2

  Inverness HGVTS—Inverness

  20

  20

  Lairg HGVTS—Lairg

  2

  2

  Wick HGVTS—Wick

  2

  2

  Kirkwall HGVTS—Kirkwall

  2

  2

  Lerwick HGVTS—Lerwick

  2

  2

  Stornoway HGVTS—Stornoway

  2

  2

  Portree HGVTS—Portree

  2

  2

  Total

  167

  167

  Traffic Area Network

  Argyle House, Edinburgh

  42

  42

  Total

  42

  42

  Overall totals

  441

  506

  Planning Inspectorate Agency
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what performance targets he proposes to set the Planning Inspectorate Agency for 2000–01. [115215]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Planning Inspectorate has a key role to play in continuing to improve the efficiency and certainty with which the planning system delivers quality services to business and other users. To this end, I have set demanding key performance targets for the Planning Inspectorate for 2000–01. These include tougher targets for handling planning appeals and for providing Inspectors for local plan inquiries. I am also making the Inspectorate's performance in handling plan inquiries the theme for their customer satisfaction survey, with a clear requirement to act upon the results.

  The tougher appeals targets which I am setting the Inspectorate to improve the service they deliver to customers makes it even more imperative that all parties to the appeals process play their part by co-operating with the Inspectorate in meeting deadlines and agreeing dates offered for inquiries.

  The targets for 2000–01 are as follows:

  Timeliness

  (a) 80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by written representations to be determined within 17 weeks;

  (b) 80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by hearings to be determined within 23 weeks;

  (c) 80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by inquiries to be determined within 33 weeks;

  (d) to provide an Inspector for local plan inquiries in at least 90 per cent. of cases on the date requested by the local authority, provided that the objection period has ended and at least six months' notice has been given; and

  (e) to deliver 90 per cent. of Inspectors' reports on local plan inquiries to local authorities according to timescales agreed under service agreements.

  Efficiency
  To generate a 3 per cent. improvement in the use of running costs compared to 1999–2000.

  Quality
  To satisfy the Advisory Panel on Standards, and thus the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales, annually and following rigorous monitoring, that the quality of all the Inspectorate's work is being maintained at a high standard, with 99 per cent. of its casework free from justified complaint.

  Information and Guidance
  To survey customer satisfaction with the Inspectorate's performance in handling development plan inquiries and to act upon the results.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Indirect Discrimination
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact on(a) his Department, (b) local education authorities and (c) schools of the extension to all duties of public authorities of the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 in respect of indirect discrimination. [114708]
  217W
  Ms Hodge
  The Race Relations Act 1976 has always applied to local education authorities and schools in respect of direct and indirect discrimination, so an extension is not necessary. The Department for Education and Employment itself has established systems that take account of the need to avoid any indirect discrimination on race grounds throughout all its functions.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals in the 500 schools with the(a) highest and (b) lowest proportion of pupils achieving five grade A*-C passes at GCSE in the last year for which figures are available. [114667]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The proportions of pupils "known to be eligible for free school meals" averaged over the 500 maintained, mainstream secondary schools with the highest, and lowest, percentages of 15-year-old pupils achieving five or more GCSE/GNVQ grades A*-C in 1999 were 5 and 37 per cent., respectively.

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher by year group in maintained primary schools in the Parliamentary constituency of Yeovil: 1996–99

  Year groups

  Position as at January

  Reception

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  Mixed

  Overall1

  1999

  Average class size

  25.8

  28.1

  28.6

  29.1

  29.5

  28.8

  28.1

  2—

  28.1

  27.8

  Pupils

  1,085

  478

  658

  640

  649

  518

  561

  2—

  2,806

  7,455

  Classes

  42

  17

  23

  22

  22

  18

  20

  3—

  100

  268

  1998

  Average class size

  27.1

  28.2

  28.1

  29.0

  28.9

  29.6

  26.4

  3—

  26.8

  27.6

  Pupils

  1,058

  479

  674

  697

  693

  621

  476

  3—

  2,729

  7,467

  Classes

  39

  17

  24

  24

  24

  21

  18

  3—

  102

  271

  1997

  Average class size

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  27.0

  Pupils

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  7,409

  Classes

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  274

  1996

  Average class size

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  27.0

  Pupils

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  7,159

  Classes

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  265

  1 Includes all year groups and nursery classes

  2 Not applicable (no classes of this type)

  3 Not available

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher by age band in maintained secondary schools in the Parliamentary constituency of Yeovil: 1996–99

  Ages 1

  Position as at January

  Middle classes

  Mainly under 14s

  Mainly 14 and 15

  16 or older

  Overall

  1999

  Average class size

  30.7

  26.7

  22.2

  8.4

  24.1

  Pupils

  736

  2,885

  2,088

  135

  Classes

  24

  108

  94

  16

  1998

  Average class size

  30.3

  25.6

  23.1

  9.3

  24.2

  Pupils

  698

  2,868

  2,011

  130

  Classes

  23

  112

  87

  14

  1997

  Average class size

  27.4

  25.4

  22.5

  9.4

  23.2

  Pupils

  795

  2,793

  2,043

  198

  Classes

  29

  110

  91

  21

  Class Sizes (Yeovil)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the average class sizes for(a) five, (b) six, (c) seven, (d) eight, (e) nine, (f) 10, (g) 11, (h) 12, (i) 13, (j) 14, (k) 15, (l) 16 and (m) 17 year olds for schools within the Yeovil constituency for (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98, (iv) 1998–99 and (v) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [114181]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The available information on average class sizes collected in January for the Parliamentary constituency of Yeovil is shown in the tables. The class size count for January 2000 is currently being undertaken and provisional national estimates are expected to be published in April.

  The Government are well on course to deliver their pledge to limit infant classes for five, six and seven year-olds to 30 or below by September 2001. In Yeovil Parliamentary constituency, the latest infant class size count carried out in September 1999 showed the average size of class to be 26.1 pupils per class.
  219W

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher by age band in maintained secondary schools in the Parliamentary constituency of Yeovil: 1996–99

  Ages 1

  Position as at January

  Middle classes

  Mainly under 14s

  Mainly 14 and 15

  16 or older

  Overall

  1996

  Average class size

  29.3

  25.4

  23.2

  9.98

  23.9

  Pupils

  820

  2,739

  2,109

  179

  Classes

  28

  108

  91

  18

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

  Language Schools
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how much funding was given by his Department to supplementary language schools in England and Wales in each year since 1992 and 1993; [113655]

  (2) what monitoring of the quality of supplementary language schools is undertaken by his Department. [113678]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 9 March 2000]: Supplementary language schools are independent community-based educational initiatives in England and are not directly funded by the DfEE. These schools fall outside of the immediate responsibility of this Department for monitoring and quality control.

  The DfEE will be setting up a Supplementary School Support Service by tender later this year. The primary responsibility for this service will be to develop the capacity for supplementary schools to improve the educational achievement of minority ethnic pupils in National Curriculum subject areas.

  The Study Support Team of the Schools Plus Division, Schools Directorate of the DfEE has assisted with some funding towards a publication called "A Directory of Supplementary and Mother-tongue Classes 1999–2000".

  I refer my hon. Friend to the Welsh Assembly for the element of his question relating to Wales.

  Voluntary Aided Schools
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action is being taken to ensure VAT does not have to be levied on basic capital approval borrowing by voluntary aided schools. [113448]

  Jacqui Smith
  The responsibility for premises work at voluntary aided schools is shared between school governing bodies and their local education authorities. The Department provides grant support at up to 85 per cent. for school governing bodies to help them meet the costs arising from their responsibilities for approved building work, including VAT. The Department does not provide basic capital approval borrowing direct to voluntary aided schools, although these schools can apply to the Department for loans to meet their share of the cost of premises work, including VAT.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the capital requirements of voluntary aided Anglican schools. [113447]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local education authorities apply to the Department each year for capital funding for voluntary aided schools as part of the Annual Capital Guidelines 220W
  process. The applications include proposals for funding premises work at Anglican voluntary aided schools. They are prioritised locally by authorities, and are then assessed by the Department against the funding criteria and to ensure that the proposals represent value for money.

  For 2000–01, £158 million has been allocated for capital and repair work at voluntary aided schools, including almost £26 million to be devolved direct to schools under Formula Capital arrangements. The total funding represents an increase of some 15 per cent. compared with 1999–2000, even after allowing for the 306 former grant maintained schools which joined the voluntary aided sector on 1 September 1999.

  Tuition Charges
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish in tabular form mandatory tuition charges and contributions falling on students for(a) English students studying in England, (b) English students studying in Scotland and (c) Scottish students studying in England; and what is the net present cost of such charges on a standardised basis. [112122]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: The table sets out the maximum tuition fee payable in 1999–2000 through public or private contributions in respect of home and other EU domiciled higher education students at publicly funded institutions across the United Kingdom. Only those students falling under the new funding arrangements (introduced in 1998) are required to make a private contribution.

  Maximum tuition fees in academic year 1999–2000

  £

  Full-time undergraduate and PGCE courses

  1,025

  Sandwich year-out and part-time courses of initial teacher training

  510

  The amount of fee payable through private contributions depends on the students' residual family income. Up to £17,370 no contributions are expected, thereafter contributions increase on a sliding scale from £45, and at residual income of £27,800 the maximum fee is payable.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mineworkers' Pension Scheme
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals the Government have for the division of the surplus in the mineworkers' pension scheme. [113256]
  221W
  The Prime Minister
  Under the agreement made between the Government and the coal pension scheme trustees in 1994, the Government guarantee inflation linked pensions and receive 50 per cent. of any declared surplus in exchange. Already the Government have covered earlier deficits and additional contributions of £400 million. The Government have received no representations from trustees for changing the division of surplus but the DTI are exploring with the trustees the scope for building upon the success achieved to date in terms of benefits for pensions.

  Official Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 March. [114182]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 February 2000,Official Report, column 852W, (1) with which Israeli political figures Lord Levy has held talks on behalf of the Prime Minister or in pursuit of British interests in the Middle East; [112511]

  (2) on what occasions during Lord Levy's visits to Israel, Lord Levy has conducted business on behalf of the Prime Minister. [112510]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Levy has frequent contact with leading Israelis, including Prime Minister Barak and other politicians. Lord Levy last saw Prime Minister Barak on 5 February. From time to time, he has passed on oral messages from me.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 February 2000,Official Report, column 852W, on Lord Levy, if the development of bilateral relationships includes discussion in respect of possible defence contracts. [112930]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: Lord Levy has not discussed prospective defence contracts.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 February 2000,Official Report, column 852W, on Lord Levy, if the discussions in furtherance of the Prime Minister's support for the Peace Process, held by Lord Levy when visiting Israel in a private capacity, were held at the specific request of the Prime Minister. [112931]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: Lord Levy conveys oral messages on my behalf from time to time. He therefore liaises closely with me and the Foreign Secretary.

  Euro
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidance he has(a) given and (b) intends to give to civil servants on their involvement with organisations campaigning for and against the single currency. [113613]
  222W
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 March 2000]: Guidance to civil servants on contacts, in an official capacity, with outside interest groups is set out in "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists". Guidance to civil servants on their private activities, including their involvement, in a private capacity, in political activities is set out in the "Civil Service Code" and the "Civil Service Management Code". Copies of these documents are available from the Library.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will acquire a copy of John Pilger' s film on Iraq, broadcast on 6 March, for the library of No. 10 Downing street. [114586]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: No.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Law Enforcement
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to propose measures(a) in and (b) outside the intergovernmental conference to improve enforcement of EU law. [113609]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have long advocated a strong and efficient European Court of Justice, and support the inclusion of ECJ reform in the discussions at this IGC. The ECJ itself has put forward ideas to improve its efficiency and reduce delays. Some do not require Treaty change and are already being discussed in the Council. But some will require Treaty change, for example, a move to qualified majority voting for deciding on the Court's rules of procedure. A 'Friends of the Presidency' group has been set up at the IGC to look at these and other proposals.

  China
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to encourage further parliamentary exchanges with China. [114159]

  Mr. Battle
  We support and encourage parliamentary exchanges with China as part of our overall strategy of engaging China on a wide range of issues and in a variety of fora.

  In particular we welcome the forthcoming visit to China by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and fellow members of the All-Party China Group. We also welcome the proposed visit of the All-Party Tibet Group to Tibet.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the non-Iraqi recipients of money paid from the UN escrow account for the Oil for Food Programme in 1999, broken down by the amount each received and the purpose for each payment. [114367]
  223W
  Mr. Hain
  Under the current terms of the Oil for Food programme the revenues raised in each six month period are divided: 54 per cent. for food, medicine and humanitarian supplies in the centre and south, 13 per cent. for food, medicine and humanitarian supplies in the three northern governorates, 30 per cent. to the UN Compensation Fund, 2.2 per cent. for the UN's costs in administering the programme, 0.8 per cent. for the administrative costs of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). For the 54 per cent. account, the Government of Iraq enters into contracts with suppliers of its choosing.

  The United Nations website at http://www.un.org/Departments/oip.html provides a detailed breakdown of applications made under the Oil for Food programme over the last year.

  Overseas Staff
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total amount of private sector payments made to Her Majesty's Government for staff working(a) in and (b) in conjunction with British embassies in each of the last three years. [114314]

  Mr. Hain
  No payments or fees have been made by private sector companies to Her Majesty's Government in respect of staff serving at British diplomatic missions.

  In a few cases, however, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office makes recoveries from companies in respect of actual expenditure incurred on their behalf by posts on, for example, accommodation, utilities, telecommunications, postage and local support staff costs.

  Total recoveries for the last three years were:

  £

  1997–98

  276,072

  1998–99

  299,328

  1999–2000

  274,090

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which companies make payments to Her Majesty's Government in relation to staff connected to British embassies. [114313]

  Mr. Hain
  UK companies do not make payments for such secondments but in a few cases the Foreign and Commonwealth Office makes recoveries in respect of certain items of administrative expenditure.

  Since 1979, the FCO has arranged 56 secondments to British diplomatic missions overseas from 40 private sector companies. 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, with a further 14 secondments having been completed over the last year. These include substantive secondments of up to four years, and short-term attachments of three to six months under the Short Term Business Attachment Scheme.
  224W
  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.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria are used for issuing diplomatic credentials to private sector employees seconded to work in British embassies. [114312]

  Mr. Hain
  All diplomatic staff working in British Missions overseas, whether they are public servants or seconded from the private sector, are accorded diplomatic status if it is required to enable them to carry out their official duties, in line with the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the personnel seconded or released by private sector companies to work in British embassies who are currently accorded diplomatic status. [114311]

  Mr. Hain
  There are at present eight private sector secondees at British diplomatic missions overseas who hold diplomatic passports. Four are on substantive secondments of up to four years, and the others are on short-term attachments of 3–6 months under the Short Term Business Attachment Scheme. All 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.

  It would not be appropriate to list individual secondees by name.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the private companies who pay Her Majesty's Government a fee for the placement of an employee in a trade support position in a British diplomatic post; if he will list each occurrence of such an arrangement, including payments made; and if he will make a statement on Government policy on such business-to-Government agreements at diplomatic posts. [114155]

  Mr. Hain
  Private sector companies do not pay fees to HMG for the placement of their employees in British diplomatic missions overseas. HMG's policy is to increase interchange between the private sector and all British Government Departments including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Secondment programmes have been running since 1979 and present activity is an important part of the Modernising Government agenda. The programmes represent a valuable two-way sharing of expertise between the public and private sectors.

  Tokyo Embassy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will terminate the secondment of the BNFL employee working as atomic energy counsellor in the British Embassy in Tokyo. [114196]

  Mr. Hain
  No.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Security
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [113220]

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [113222]

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [113232]

  Mr. Ingram
  There remains a continuing potent and dangerous threat from dissident paramilitaries. There has also been a recent increase in the so-called punishment beatings which we unreservedly condemn. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continues to keep the security situation under close review.

  Prisoner Releases
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of terrorist prisoners who have been released early under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [113223]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date there have been 319 prisoners released under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. This is drawn from information current at 7 March 2000.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current peace negotiations in Northern Ireland. [113224]

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of political talks in relation to the peace process in Northern Ireland. [113226]

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recent political developments in Northern Ireland in relation to the peace process. [113236]

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made towards peace in Northern Ireland. [113237]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Members to the reply I gave today,Official Report, column 281, to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prospects for re-establishing the devolved administration in Northern Ireland. [113228]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I met the Irish Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland in a series of meetings last week and these consultations will continue in the U.S.226W
  over St. Patrick's Day. These consultations are aimed at bringing the process back on track so that the institutions can be restored to normal operation as soon as possible.

  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the Irish Government about the way forward for peace in Northern Ireland. [113230]

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the circumstances in which he will restore powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. [113231]

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for reviving the Northern Ireland Assembly and other institutions established under the Belfast agreement. [113241]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I met representatives of the Irish Government last week during consultations with the political parties in Northern Ireland. From those discussions we agreed that the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement remains the best way forward to achieve stability, peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

  Tourism
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent steps he has taken to encourage tourism to Northern Ireland. [113227]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Northern Ireland Tourist Board in conjunction with the tourism industry has recently launched a spring marketing campaign in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland offering good value short break holidays. This will help to build on the excellent results for 1999 when 1.64 million visitors came to Northern Ireland, contributing £255 million to the economy.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met General John de Chastelain to discuss progress on decommissioning. [113229]

  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met General John de Chastelain to discuss progress on decommissioning. [113240]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met General de Chastelain on 14 February.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the decommissioning of illegally-held weapons and explosives. [113235]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on 2 March 2000,Official Report, columns 404–05W.

  RN Patrol Vessels
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the future of the Royal Navy Northern Ireland patrol vessels. [113233]
  227W
  Mr. Ingram
  I have had no discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence on the future of Royal Navy Northern Ireland patrol vessels, but would expect to be to be consulted about their future should the need arise.

  New Deal
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the impact of the new deal on unemployment levels in Northern Ireland. [113234]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since New Deal was introduced in April 1998, unemployment has fallen by 54.2 per cent. in the target group for the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, and 45.2 per cent. in the New Deal 25+ target group. The corresponding fall in non-target group unemployment was 2.1 per cent. An evaluation of New Deal in Northern Ireland is under way.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the implementation of the New Deal programme in Northern Ireland. [113239]

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the implementation of the New Deal programme in Northern Ireland. [113244]

  Mr. Ingram
  All the New Deal initiatives are being successfully implemented in Northern Ireland. In particular the New Deal for 18–24 year olds and the New Deal for 25+ pilot, which applies throughout Northern Ireland, have had a major impact on unemployment with decreases of 54 per cent. and 45 per cent. respectively in the eligible groups claiming Jobseeker's Allowance since April 1998.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have benefited from the national minimum wage. [113238]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no definitive estimate of the number of people directly affected by the National Minimum Wage legislation. However, the latest official estimates relating to the period March-May 1999 indicate that 6.8 per cent. of Northern Ireland employees were earning less than the Minimum Wage. This compares with 10.1 per cent. in the same period one year earlier, representing a reduction over the period of 3.3 percentage points.

  Victim Support
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many families have received help from the Government programmes of victim support during the past 12 months. [113242]

  Mr. Ingram
  In terms of initiatives for victims of the troubles, figures for the number of families that have received help are not collected centrally. Many families are helped through the Government's funding of victim support groups and other Government initiatives designed to alleviate the suffering of those most affected by the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

  Patten Report
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to introduce legislation to implement the Patten report on policing. [113243]

  Mr. Ingram
  Legislation will be introduced in Parliament before Easter.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress made on policing reform since the publication of the Patten report. [113221]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement of decisions on Patten on 19 January work has been ongoing to introduce a Police Bill before Easter. We are also preparing an implementation plan and are engaged in discussions on severance and in the search of an Oversight Commissioner.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints have been lodged to date by serving RUC officers against a serving police officer whose name has been supplied to him. [112038]

  Mr. Ingram
  Four complaints have been lodged.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will discuss with the Chief Constable the appointment of an experienced senior officer from a police force other than the Royal Ulster Constabulary to investigate complaints made against a serving police officer whose name has been supplied to him. [112039]

  Mr. Ingram
  No. The matter is one of internal investigation and an Assistant Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was appointed on 7 March to investigate the allegations.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) RUC working hours have been allocated to and (b) RUC officers have been employed in the protection of members of the Parades Commission over the past 12 months. [113830]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information necessary to answer this question is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to promote energy efficiency in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [113680]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 March 2000]: Government actively promote energy efficiency in the public, domestic and industrial/commercial sectors. An Inter-Departmental Committee on Energy Efficiency co-ordinates energy efficiency measures throughout the public sector. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive, as the Home Energy Conservation Authority for Northern Ireland, promotes energy efficiency in the domestic sector, delivers the Domestic Energy Efficiency Scheme and provides a range of energy efficiency services for vulnerable groups. The Industrial Research and

  229W
  Technology Unit promotes energy efficiency in industry and commerce through free advisory visits to companies; seminars and workshops; and technical and financial support for energy efficiency measures.

  Biomass Energy
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to promote energy from biomass sources; and if he will make a statement. [113683]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 March 2000]: Short-rotation coppice (SRC) biomass has the potential to make a positive and significant contribution to the generation of electricity from renewable sources and to meet international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Northern Ireland. Grants to encourage planting of short rotation coppice are available under the Woodland Grant Scheme. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has undertaken extensive research on the agronomic aspects of growing SRC in Northern Ireland and has developed systems for combined heat and power plants based upon biomass from short rotation coppice willow. Two experimental biomass schemes, including the first commercial biomass fuelled combined heat and power plant in the UK, near Londonderry, were assisted under the Energy Demonstration Scheme and the INTERREG II Programme respectively. Both projects were subsequently awarded 15 year contracts by Northern Ireland Electricity plc under its Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation.

  Social Enterprises
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to offer financial assistance and support to social enterprises in Northern Ireland. [113681]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 March 2000]: Social enterprises in Northern Ireland fall under the remit of DETI, which through the Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU), the small business agency for Northern Ireland, assists community businesses and co-operatives directly via the Community Business Start Up Scheme and indirectly via the Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency (NICDA).

  The Community Business Start Up Programme, which has been in operation for nine years now, is an important means of addressing inequality and promoting economic development in disadvantaged areas.

  Since its relaunch in 1996, the Programme has committed £1.5 million to support the establishment of 104 community businesses throughout Northern Ireland, creating employment opportunities for 182 people. Each business remains on the programme for two years from start-up with survival rates of 65–70 per cent. All businesses assisted under the programme are located in areas of social need or have direct benefit to the regeneration of such areas by the involvement of local communities in businesses, earning profits for local reapplication.

  NICDA, also known as the Social Economy Agency, has provided development support and training to groups and local communities all over Northern Ireland seeking to establish social economy initiatives since 1985. NICDA
  230W
  has received funding from LEDU since 1994 for the delivery of a number of community-based projects in fulfilment of LEDU's objectives, including funding for the delivery of the Community Business Start Up Programme.

  More recently, LEDU has assisted NICDA by purchasing a number of the programmes from their Social Economy Enterprise Programme, in particular those which add value to its Community Business Start Up Programme by stimulating increased Enterprise Awareness. Some of these programmes seek to develop marketing and other commercial skills within the Social Economy Sector.

  Offshore Wind Power
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to promote onshore to offshore wind energy in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [113684]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 March 2000]: The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department of Public Enterprise, Dublin, have jointly commissioned a study into the potential for off-shore wind energy around the island of Ireland. The study report is expected shortly and, in the light of its recommendations, consideration will be given to how best to develop the potential of this renewable technology.

  Integrated Education
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) Protestants and (b) Roman Catholics are enrolled at each of the integrated primary schools and at each of the integrated secondary schools in Northern Ireland. [113687]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The figures requested are:

  Integrated primary schools

  School name

  Roman Catholic

  Protestant

  Forge Integrated Primary School

  105

  102

  Hazelwood Integrated Primary School

  184

  119

  Cranmore Integrated Primary School

  58

  53

  Enniskillen Integrated Primary School

  105

  69

  Omagh Integrated Primary School

  90

  53

  Oakgrove Integrated Primary School

  195

  147

  Carhill Integrated Primary School

  17

  29

  Rathenraw Integrated Primary School

  62

  33

  Mill Strand Integrated Primary School

  72

  70

  Braidside Integrated Primary School

  84

  115

  Corran Integrated Primary School

  61

  33

  Acorn Integrated Primary School

  59

  106

  Spires Integrated Primary School

  30

  18

  Hilden Integrated Primary School

  9

  37

  Kircubbin Integrated Primary School

  22

  48

  Portaferry Integrated Primary School

  33

  24

  Bangor Central Integrated Primary School

  22

  216

  Annsborough Integrated Primary School

  41

  4

  All Children's Integrated Primary School

  115

  70

  Loughview Integrated Primary School

  68

  62

  Cedar Integrated Primary School

  59

  48

  Oakwood Integrated Primary School

  58

  39

  Kilbroney Integrated Primary School

  35

  23

  Bridge Integrated Primary School

  189

  162

  Portadown Integrated Primary School

  87

  65

  Windmill Integrated Primary School

  78

  66

  Saints and Scholars Integrated Primary School

  91

  55

  231W

  Integrated secondary schools

  School name

  Roman Catholic

  Protestant

  Hazelwood College

  364

  249

  Malone Integrated College

  193

  162

  Oakgrove Integrated College

  498

  241

  Erne Integrated College

  226

  116

  Drumragh College

  341

  169

  Slemish Integrated College

  139

  183

  North Coast Integrated College

  83

  178

  Priory College

  25

  301

  Fort Hill College

  48

  650

  Down Academy

  34

  211

  Lagan College

  336

  419

  Shimna Integrated College

  243

  149

  Strangford Integrated College

  75

  131

  Brownlow College

  114

  215

  New Bridge Integrated College

  248

  117

  Armagh/South Tyrone Integrated College

  232

  141

  Note:

  Some pupils in these schools may be classified as neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Victim and Witness Support
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many(a) Crown courts and (b) magistrates courts there are (i) formal arrangements for (1) victim support and (2) witness support and (ii) separate waiting areas for prosecution and defence witnesses; and in each case what proportion of the totals these figures represent. [114339]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are "witness support" services, run by Victim Support, in all Crown court centres. In February 1999 the Home Secretary announced that additional money had been provided to enable Victim Support to extend its witness services into the magistrates courts. The target is for all magistrates courts (around 420) to have a witness service by 31 March 2002. Interim targets of 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. have been set for 31 March 2000 and 2001 respectively. It is expected that these targets will be met.

  Separate waiting areas for prosecution and defence witnesses are provided in all new court buildings and where refurbishment takes place. Where it is not possible to provide separate rooms, special arrangements can be made through the court or witness service. Forty Crown court centres have separate waiting areas for prosecution and defence witnesses out of a total of 93 Crown court centres, including satellites. The information for magistrates courts is not readily available.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department as of 1 April 1999, which of the executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) were required to publish annual reports, (b) were required to publish annual accounts, (c) were subject to a full audit by the National Audit Office, (d) were under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Ombudsman or other ombudsmen, (e) had their own complaints procedure, (f) were required to observe the Code of Practice on Access to Government
  232W
  Information, (g) possessed a register of Members' interests, (h) allowed the public to inspect a register of Members' interests, (i) were subject to a public right to attend board meetings or committee meetings, (j) were obliged to release reports of meetings, (k) were subject to a public right to inspect agendas of meetings, (l) were subject to a public right to see minutes of meetings, (m) were required to hold public meetings, (n) (i) maintained an internet site (ii) were developing an internet site and (o) had been subject to a quinquennial review within the last year, including a continuing review. [114167]

  Jane Kennedy
  My officials are providing a detailed response to my hon. Friend's points to be submitted to the Public Administration Committee by the end of the month. I shall place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Lord Chancellors
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many former Lord Chancellors have continued to sit as judges after they ceased to be Lord Chancellor; and if he will list the number of cases tried by them in each of the last 20 years. [112814]

  Mr. Lock
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: Since 1980, four former Lord Chancellors have sat judicially after leaving office:

  Lord Elwyn-Jones

  Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone

  Lord Havers

  Lord Mackay of Clashfern.

  The appeals heard are listed in the table.

  Number of appeals heard by former Lord Chancellors 1980–2000

  Year

  Number of appeals heard

  1980

  1

  1981

  5

  1982

  8

  1983

  8

  1984

  9

  1985

  7

  1986

  2

  1987

  4

  1988

  8

  1989

  1

  1990

  0

  1991

  0

  1992

  0

  1993

  0

  1994

  0

  1995

  0

  1996

  0

  1997

  5

  1998

  1

  1999

  6

  2000

  14

  1 To date

  Magistrates Courts (Safe Cells)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if it is his policy that all magistrates courts shall have safe cells installed; and if he will make a statement. [113732]
  233W
  Jane Kennedy
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: Custody areas in magistrates courts are not used for holding individuals overnight. They do not reflect, therefore, the design requirements of HM Prison Service's improved standard cell or "safe cell".

HEALTH

  Generic Drugs
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the Government's response to the Health Committee's First report of Session 1999–2000 on the Cost and Availability of Generic Drugs to the National Health Service (HC105). [115217]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government's response to the Health Committee's Report on the Cost and Availability of Generic Drugs to the National Health Service is published today and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the quality of care in the community for people with learning disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [110799]

  Mr. Hutton
  Work is currently under way on developing a new national learning disability strategy. The strategy will look at a wide range of issues, including services for people with learning disabilities living in the community.

  The National Health Service and local authorities have been asked to prepare Joint Investment Plans (JIPs) for people with learning disabilities from April 2001. The JIPs will provide a practical means for implementing the learning disability strategy and an excellent opportunity for the NHS and local authorities to consider how the flexibilities in the Health Act 1999 can best be used to improve outcomes for people with learning disabilities. Promoting independence and social inclusion are key themes of JIPs.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many drugs have been evaluated by NICE; and how many are being evaluated. [111423]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence's first work programme was announced on 4 November last year and includes 13 appraisals of drugs or groups of drugs. NICE has so far completed the fast track appraisal of the flu drug zanamivir (Relenza), and the remainder are currently being evaluated.

  Contraceptive Drugs
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the NHS of emergency contraceptive drugs in each of the years 1990 to 1997. [113166]

  Yvette Cooper
  The available information is shown in the tables.
  234W
  Table 1 shows the number of prescriptions and the net ingredient cost of emergency contraceptive drug (Schering PC4) dispensed in the community in England.

  Table 2 shows the number of prescriptions and net ingredient cost of hormonal emergency contraceptives prescribed at Family Planning Clinics in England.

  Table 1: Number of prescriptions and the net ingredient cost of emergency contraceptive drugs, (Schering PC4), prescribed in the community 1990 to 1997—England

  Year

  Number (000s)

  Net ingredient cost (£000)

  1990

  189.6

  274.5

  1991

  232.8

  337.5

  1992

  272.2

  391.8

  1993

  313.3

  450.8

  1994

  363.8

  520.8

  1995

  475.4

  678.5

  1996

  565.6

  900.2

  1997

  552.8

  897.7

  Notes:

  1. The prescription information was obtained from the Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) system. Please note that the data in 1990 are not strictly consistent with data from 1991 onwards. Figures for 1990 are based on fees and on a sample of 1 in 200 prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only. Figures for 1991 onwards are based on items and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered. The data do not cover drugs dispensed in hospital, Family Planning Clinics, or on private prescriptions.

  2. The net ingredient cost (NIC) is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  Table 2: Occasions on which hormonal emergency contraceptives prescribed by Family Planning Clinics and the net ingredient cost, 1990 to 1997—England

  Hormonal emergency contraceptive

  Year

  Number (000s)

  Assumed net ingredient cost1 (£000)

  1990

  45.5

  63.7

  1991

  63.0

  88.2

  1992

  76.7

  107.4

  1993

  92.2

  129.1

  1994

  112.1

  156.9

  1995

  157.6

  220.6

  1996

  193.7

  271.2

  1997

  205.1

  287.1

  1 Costs are calculated using the assumption that the cost of hormonal emergency contraceptives used in Family Planning Clinics is the same as that for Schering PC4 prescribed in the community.

  Source:

  KT31

  Department of Health Statistics division SD2B

  Psychiatric Secure Beds
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what (1) analysis he has made of the shortage of secure beds in psychiatric hospitals broken down by(a) region and (b) trust; what plans he has to meet the shortfall; and if he will make a statement; [113592]

  (2) what have been the locations of the secure places in the mental health service provided in the last six months; what plans he has to increase the number in the next financial year; and if he will make a statement. [113564]
  235W
  Mr. Hutton
  As the consultation document on the findings of the National Bed Enquiry shows, there is a significant shortage of medium secure provision across the country.

  The immediate priority is to use the additional investment through the National Health Service modernisation fund to enable the development of balanced mental health systems. In this first year, NHS Modernisation Fund investment has been targeted where the need is greatest. This has resulted in plans for significant numbers of extra secure beds.

  During 1999–2000, £14.5 million of the Fund was allocated to improve overall secure capacity by increasing the number of medium and low secure places, and intensive care beds in mental health services. By April 2001 the intention is to have an extra 250 NHS secure places in addition to the 221 places funded in 1999–2000, exceeding the target set out in Mental Health National Service Framework of 300 extra places by April 2002.

  I will write to the hon. Member giving details of the exact locations of where these places have been provided in the last six months.

  Patient Referrals
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what rights general practitioners have to refer patients to hospitals other than those with service agreements with their primary care group on non-medical grounds; [113860]

  (2) what arrangements have been made to remunerate hospitals for treating patients referred to them by general practitioners exercising their legal right to select a hospital with no service agreement with their local primary care group; [113855]

  (3) what measures exist to discourage general practitioners from referring patients to hospitals other than those with service agreements with their primary care group; [113861]

  (4) in what circumstances a patient may receive out of area treatment. [113857]

  Mr. Denham
  Long-term service agreements should reflect the views of all local general practitioners and their community health colleagues in primary care groups (PCGs). These arrangements do not impinge on the clinical responsibility of GPs and consultants to make appropriate referrals.

  PCGs do not alter the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 which state
  general practitioners may arrange for the referral of patients, as appropriate, for the provision of services.

  The arrangements for out of area treatment (OATs) are set out in HSC 1999/117 "The New NHS: Guidance on Out of Area Treatment". Copies are available in the Library. The OAT arrangements are used where pre-arranged service agreements are impractical. They are primarily for emergency situations, but also for cases where a patient's personal circumstances, such as the need to recuperate with a faraway relative, require referral outside the normal arrangements.
  236W
  There is no formal prior approval mechanism for referrals under the OAT arrangements. Local accountability arrangements should be in place to govern the way PCGs, primary care trusts and GPs refer patients in general. These may also include agreed protocols about referrals to highly specialised services and the way that the OAT arrangements are utilised.

  Under the OAT arrangements, each NHS trust has a main commissioner. The main commissioner is funded for OATs through a non-recurrent adjustment to allocations as part of the overall process for setting cash limits for the financial year. NHS trusts are funded by their main commissioners.

  Out-of-area Treatments
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many out-of-area treatments there have been since April 1999(a) in England, (b) in West Hertfordshire Health Authority, (c) in East and North Hertfordshire Health Authority, (d) of patients resident in West Hertfordshire Health Authority area in other areas and (e) of patients resident in East and North Hertfordshire Health Authority area in other areas. [113852]

  Mr. Denham
  The monitoring of out-of-area treatments and other referrals is a matter for local management. This information is not collected centrally.

  Drug Treatment Programmes
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he plans to take to reduce the average waiting time for drug treatment programmes. [113955]

  Mr. Denham
  We have made available an additional £70.5 million over three years for health authorities and local authorities to expand treatment services for drug misusers. This is intended to support a step change in services, whereby waiting times will be cut and equity of access achieved. We have this week launched a campaign to recruit an additional 300 drugs counsellors for the health service, prison service, probation service, police, voluntary sector and local authorities.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are on waiting lists for methadone maintenance or withdrawal programmes; and what is the average waiting time for treatment. [113957]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally. Information is available from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases on the number of users presenting to services for treatment and the drugs misused. Reliable information is not available centrally on waiting times for treatment. Revised clinical guidelines for the treatment of drug misusers were issued last year which recommend that methadone maintenance treatment should form an important part of drug misuse services. Substantial additional resources are being allocated to health authorities and local authorities to expand treatment services and thus cut waiting times and achieve equity of access to treatment services.

  Clinical Indicators
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to publish(a) mortality rates and (b) frequency of performing medical procedures for (i) individual consultants and (ii) hospitals. [113850]
  237W
  Mr. Denham
  In 1999 the Department published six Clinical Indicators, which included headline indicator sets of mortality and hospital readmission rates by National Health Service trust. This information allowed NHS organisations to explore their position relative to other similar organisations and to take action to review variations in performance. A similar set of clinical indicators are due to be published in June 2000.

  Section 64 Grants
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce his decision on the awarding of section 64 grants for the coming financial years. [113841]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) on 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 117W.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the percentage allocation of section 64 grants to charities which specialise in long-term medical conditions. [113842]

  Mr. Hutton
  Around 20 per cent. of the section 64 budget for 1999–2000 was allocated to voluntary bodies that provide various forms of support for people with disabilities and medical conditions. The allocation of section 64 funds across the voluntary sector is kept under review in light of the Department's priorities.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government plans to implement the report from the Royal Commission on long-term care for the elderly chaired by Sir Stewart Sunderland. [114740]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on 1 March 2000,Official Report, column 321W.

  Waiting Lists (Somerset)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of people waiting for outpatient appointments at the(a) East Somerset Health Trust and (b) Taunton and Somerset Health Trust on 1 February for each of the years (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98, (iv) 1998–99 and (v) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [114180]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The Department does not collect information on the total number of people waiting for outpatient appointments on any given day. Because of the high turnover of outpatient waiting lists (75 per cent. of patients are seen within 13 weeks) it would not be a useful indicator to have the total number of waiting at the last day of the quarter.

  Race Relations (Amendment) Bill
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on(a) his Department, (b) health authorities, (c) NHS trusts and (d) NHS primary care groups of the extension to all duties of public authorities of the provisions on indirect discrimination contained in the Race Relations Act 1976. [114539]
  238W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The Department is currently working with lawyers to assess the impact of the extension to all duties of public authorities of the provisions on indirect discrimination contained in the Race Relations Act 1976. This includes implications for the Department, health authorities and National Health Service trusts and primary care groups.

  Circumcision
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has offered to health authorities on the priority which they should give to non-medical circumcision. [114538]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: We issue guidance on national priorities for treatment. For all other services local health authorities and primary care groups are responsible for identifying local need and commissioning services in response to that need.

  Beggars (Children)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to deal with the problem of children being used for the purposes of begging; and if he will make a statement. [114723]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are very concerned about the exploitation of children, and are committed to ensuring that all children are safeguarded and protected from harm. The police can act to prevent children being used for begging under Section 4 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Local authorities have a statutory duty under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to make inquiries where they have reasonable cause for concern that a child may need protection.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the role of residential care as a placement option for looked-after children; and if he will make a statement. [114722]

  Mr. Hutton
  Residential child care remains a valued placement option for some children who are looked after by local authorities. About 6,300 children were living in children's homes at 31 March 1999. This figure is much the same as the previous year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to eliminate the backlog of payments of minimum income guarantee to pensioners in Norfolk. [113829]

  Mr. Rooker
  I understand that although my hon. Friend refers to Minimum Income Guarantee, for which there are no backlogs, the question should have referred to delays in payments arising because of NIRS2.

  In Benefits Agency offices in Norwich and King's Lynn there are a total of 1,064 pension cases which were affected by the delayed implementation of NIRS2 that are still to be reviewed. Not all these cases, however, will result in the current rate of benefit being revised.
  239W
  Where awards of pension cannot be immediately calculated using information from NIRS2 a clerical calculation is made. This arrangement will continue until all cases can be calculated using NIRS2. Extra staff have been made available for this.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the offices (i) owned and (ii) rented by his Department and its agencies in Scotland and (b) the number of staff (y) employed and (z) that can be accommodated (1) in total and (2) at each site. [114235]

  Angela Eagle
  This Department no longer owns nor rents any offices. Since the PRIME contract began in April 1998, the Department has purchased serviced office accommodation from our private sector partners, Trillium plc.

  A list of the buildings in Scotland where Trillium provides serviced office accommodation to the Department, as the major occupier, is given in the table.

  Property

  Occupier

  Number of staff

  Square metres/head

  Total Business Square Metres (BSM)

  Benefits Agency

  Cumbernauld Fleming House

  AD 12

  109

  20.40

  2,224

  Dumfries Irish Street

  AD 12

  107

  12.70

  1,359

  Campbeltown Hall Street

  AD 12

  19

  21.76

  413

  Glasgow Minerva Street

  AD 12

  0

  0.00

  910

  Largs Brisbane Road

  AD 12

  5

  19.84

  99

  Ayr Wallacetoun House

  AD 12

  209

  12.48

  2,608

  Stranraer Ashwood Drive

  AD 12

  43

  15.82

  680

  Stornaway Castle Street

  AD 12

  40

  16.90

  676

  Wick Girnigoe Street

  AD 12

  51

  14.97

  763

  48 Princes Street, Ardrossan

  AD 12

  0

  0.00

  75

  Glasgow Benalder Street

  AD 12

  81

  16.72

  1,354

  Fort William Tweeddale

  AD 12

  29

  17.59

  510

  Glasgow Shettleston Road

  AD 12

  160

  14.61

  2,337

  Glasgow Coustonholm Road

  AD 12

  216

  14.91

  3,220

  Kirkintilloch Townhead

  AD 12

  2

  38.40

  77

  Paisley Lonend

  AD 12

  256

  11.81

  3,023

  Traill House Olrig Street, Thurso

  AD 12

  1

  105

  105

  Girvan Montgomerie Street

  AD 12

  0

  0.00

  72

  Glasgow Nitshill Road

  AD 12

  0

  0.00

  476

  Johnstone William Street

  AD 12

  5

  33.50

  168

  Cumnock Glaisnock Street

  AD 12

  7

  22.57

  158

  Glasgow West Regent House

  AD 12

  222

  12.57

  2,790

  Dingwall Castle Street

  AD 12

  0

  0.00

  73

  Elgin Trinity Road

  AD 12

  60

  20.41

  1,225

  Glasgow Herschell Street

  AD 12

  153

  15.21

  2,327

  Glasgow Stepps Road

  AD 12

  98

  26.06

  2,554

  Greenock Dalrymple Street

  AD 12

  187

  13.93

  2,606

  Kilmarnock Woodstock Street

  AD 12

  102

  17.88

  1,823

  Glasgow Paisley Road West (1479)

  AD 12

  122

  6.97

  850

  Oban Mathieson House

  AD 12

  21

  33.34

  700

  East Kilbride Murray House

  AD 12

  123

  13.78

  1,695

  Glasgow Muslin Street

  AD 12

  130

  17.40

  2,262

  Glasgow Mitchell Arcade

  AD 12

  16

  22.22

  355

  Irvine Bank Street

  AD 12

  188

  11.27

  2,120

  Clydebank Radnor House

  AD 12

  176

  13.90

  2,446

  Inverness Church Street

  AD 12

  157

  12.48

  1,960

  Glasgow Laurieston House

  AD 12

  227

  16.49

  3,744

  Benbecula Druim Na H'Airde

  AD 12

  1

  43.00

  43

  Glasgow Atlas Road

  AD 12

  199

  16.68

  3,319

  Port Glasgow Scarlow Street

  AD 12

  30

  53.77

  1,613

  Glasgow Maryhill Road

  AD 12

  103

  21.67

  2,232

  Alexandria Mitchell Way

  AD 12

  2

  53.65

  107

  Alloa Bank Street

  AD 13

  2

  36.73

  73

  Coatbridge South Circular Road

  AD 13

  12

  160.51

  1,926

  Airdrie Graham Street

  AD 13

  12

  43.63

  524

  240W
  The table gives details of the total number of staff employed and a breakdown, by business unit, of the number of staff at each site.

  Information about the numbers of staff that could feasibly be accommodated within the space currently occupied is not held centrally but details of the total business square metres available to each business unit is provided in the table. An average square metre allocation per member of staff is also given. This is a "notional" figure, however, and takes no account of the purpose for which the accommodation is maintained nor of less populated areas such as public caller areas and reception areas.

  Trillium are contractually obliged to help business units to plan the effective and efficient management of their own accommodation and are actively working with the Department to achieve a greater degree of sophistication in our space utilisation plans. The ultimate aim is to maximise the benefit of the accommodation for all users, while maintaining an effective service to the customer.
  241W

  Property

  Occupier

  Number of staff

  Square metres/head

  Total Business Square Metres (BSM)

  Aberdeen Greyfriars House

  AD 13

  222

  15.24

  3,384

  Bathgate Whitburn Road

  AD 13

  252

  11.25

  2,834

  Wishaw Alexander Street

  AD 13

  0

  0.00

  695

  Shotts Dyfrig Street

  AD 13

  2

  169.00

  338

  Peterhead Government Buildings

  AD 13

  54

  19.96

  1,078

  Falkirk Heron House

  AD 13

  0

  0.00

  2,185

  Leven Walton House

  AD 13

  52

  28.85

  1,500

  Falkirk Heron House (PAU)

  AD 13

  119

  1.34

  159

  Edinburgh Murrayburn House

  AD 13

  8

  59.38

  475

  Hamilton Douglas Street

  AD 13

  140

  13.64

  1,909

  Blairgowrie Leslie Street

  AD 13

  0

  0.00

  71

  Edinburgh Argyle House

  AD 13

  206

  51.53

  10,615

  Cowdenbeath Factory Road

  AD 13

  58

  16.54

  959

  Units 9 and 10 Block 4 Blantyre Industrial Estate, DIRC

  AD 13

  17

  55.24

  939

  Motherwell Fleminton House

  AD 13

  137

  19.78

  2,709

  Glenrothes North House

  AD 13

  5

  30.40

  152

  Bellshill Bowling Green St. (New Bldg.)

  AD 13

  10

  155.50

  1,555

  Montrose Murray Street

  AD 13

  0

  0.00

  91

  Dalkeith Eskdaill Street

  AD 13

  12

  10.99

  132

  Coatbridge Unit 2

  AD 13

  103

  4.86

  501

  Larkhall Union Street

  AD 13

  3

  39.33

  118

  Wishaw Main Street

  AD 13

  4

  81.50

  326

  Dunfermline Merchiston House

  AD 13

  72

  17.10

  1,231

  Kirkcaldy Victoria Road

  AD 13

  120

  22.61

  2,713

  Perth Mill Street

  AD 13

  83

  20.49

  1,700

  Edinburgh Haymarket House

  AD 13

  11

  32.28

  355

  Galashiels Market Street

  AD 13

  79

  14.06

  1,111

  Stirling St. Ninian's Road

  AD 13

  126

  16.68

  2,102

  Forfar Castle Street

  AD 13

  0

  0.00

  73

  Dundee Magdalene Yard Road

  AD 13

  0

  0.00

  293

  Arbroath Grant Road

  AD 13

  73

  18.69

  1,364

  Edinburgh High Street—Portobello

  AD 13

  124

  15.87

  1,967

  Lerwick Charlotte House

  AD 13

  18

  28.78

  518

  Dundee Lindsay House

  AD 13

  238

  13.52

  3,219

  Edinburgh Leith Lyndean House

  AD 13

  106

  23.78

  2,521

  St. Andrews South Street

  AD 13

  0

  0.00

  88

  Glasgow Northgate

  AD 2

  767

  11.63

  8,924

  Glasgow Pentagon Centre

  AD 2

  36

  47.75

  1,719

  Glasgow Corunna House (29)

  DCBD

  175

  16.67

  2,917

  Glasgow Corunna House (39)

  DCBD

  63

  41.03

  2,585

  Child Support Agency

  Aberdeen Greyfiars House

  CSA

  5

  20.05

  100

  Bathgate Whitburn Road

  CSA

  0

  0.00

  91

  Campbeltown Hall Street

  CSA

  1

  26.18

  26

  Clydebank Radnor House

  CSA

  3

  14.25

  43

  Cowdenbeath Factory Road

  CSA

  6

  13.17

  79

  Cumbernauld Fleming House

  CSA

  1

  43.07

  43

  Dumfries Irish Street

  CSA

  2

  49.56

  99

  Dundee Lindsay House

  CSA

  9

  17.05

  153

  Edinburgh Argyle House

  CSA

  37

  13.78

  510

  Edinburgh High Street—Portobello

  CSA

  0

  0.00

  12

  Elgin Trinity Road

  CSA

  2

  20.12

  40

  Falkirk Antonine House

  CSA

  141

  21.29

  3,001

  Falkirk Callendar Park

  CSA

  798

  9.46

  7,552

  Falkirk Heron House

  CSA

  8

  11.53

  92

  Galashiels Market Street

  CSA

  1

  28.39

  28

  Glasgow Muslin Street

  CSA

  5

  11.12

  56

  Glasgow Paisley Road West (1479)

  CSA

  61

  12.08

  737

  Glasgow West Regent House

  CSA

  12

  9.04

  109

  Greenock Dalrymple Street

  CSA

  10

  24.81

  248

  Hamilton Douglas Street

  CSA

  11

  18.34

  202

  Inverness Church Street

  CSA

  11

  5.27

  58

  Irvine Bank Street

  CSA

  14

  17.76

  249

  Oban Mathieson House

  CSA

  1

  11.87

  12

  Paisley Lonend

  CSA

  4

  23.37

  93

  Perth Mill Street

  CSA

  11

  16.22

  178

  Peterhead Government Buildings

  CSA

  3

  31.23

  94

  Stirling St. Ninian's Road

  CSA

  10

  8.96

  90

  Stranraer Ashwood Drive

  CSA

  1

  14.32

  14

  Wick Girnigoe Street

  CSA

  5

  21.03

  105

  242W 243W

  Property

  Occupier

  Number of staff

  Square metres/head

  Total Business Square Metres (BSM)

  War Pensions Agency

  Aberdeen Greyfriars House

  WPA

  2

  21.55

  43.09

  Dundee Lindsay House

  WPA

  0

  0.00

  26.11

  Edinburgh Argyle House

  WPA

  7

  20.46

  143.23

  Glasgow West Regent House

  WPA

  9

  17.51

  157.55

  Information Technology Services Agency

  Buchanan House Livingstone

  EDS1

  10

  0.00

  15,080

  Livingstone Firth Road Store

  EDS1

  10

  0.00

  1,923

  Headquarters

  Edinburgh Argyle House

  HQ

  34

  16.12

  548

  Appeals Service

  Wellington House Glasgow

  AS

  141

  14.62

  2,060.74

  Total

  8,543

  —

  171,823

  AD 12—West of Scotland Area Directorate

  AD 13—East of Scotland Area Directorate

  AD 2—Chilterns Area Directorate

  DCBD—Disability and Carers Benefits Directorate

  Note:

  No DSS staff—occupied by service provider, EDS staff

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Museums, Galleries and Archives Council
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to ensure that the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council co-operates with local authorities and with their representative bodies. [114466]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: One of the key strategic objectives of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLAC) as set out in their consultation document of January 2000 is

  Consortium/Members

  East of England Cultural Consortium

  Chair: Graham Creelman

  Managing Director, Anglia TV

  Amanda Arrowsmith

  English Heritage Regional Commissioner

  Peter Battrick

  East of England Environment Forum

  Jonathan Bowman

  Chair, East of England Tourist Board

  John Burgess

  Chair, of Sport England (East)

  Julian Campbell

  Regional Screen Commissioner

  Jeremy Clover

  Suffolk County Council

  Lorna Davies

  Chair, COVER (Home Office sponsored voluntary sector network)

  Barry George

  Regional Library Service

  Irene Macdonald

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council

  Anthony Rowlands

  St. Albans City and District Council

  Jacqualine Russell

  East of England Development Agency

  Wendy Silby

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  Hazel Simmons

  Luton Borough Council

  Elizabeth Stazicker

  Chair, Regional Archives Council

  Stuart Timperley

  Chair, Eastern Arts

  Marion Williams

  Area Museums Council

  East Midlands Cultural Consortium

  Chair: Venu Dhupa

  Executive Director, Nottingham Playhouse

  Sandra Barnes

  South Northamptonshire District Council

  Heather Broughton

  Head of Museums and Arts, Leicestershire County Council

  Ted Cassidy

  Deputy Chairman, East Midlands Development Agency

  Ian Croft

  Lincolnshire County Council

  Devon Daly

  BBC Radio Nottingham

  John Dickie

  Northampton Borough Council

  Tim Garfield

  Regional Director, Sport England (East Midlands)

  HRH Duke of Gloucester

  English Heritage Regional Commissioner

  David Johnson

  Year of the Artist

  David Lathrope

  Assistant Director, Libraries, Archives and Information, Nottinghamshire County Council

  Alan McAinish

  Chief Executive, Castle Ashby, Northampton

  Ian McLennan

  Nottingham City Council

  Ned Newitt

  Leicester City Council

  Christine Rose

  Chesterfield Borough Council

  Rachel Watson

  County Archivist, Northamptonshire County Records Office

  Janet Wootton

  Independent Television Commission (Midlands)

  Culture North East

  Chair: George Gill

  Leader of Gateshead MBC

  John Burton

  Sedgefield District Council

  Patrick Conway

  Regional Library System

  Jane Darbyshire

  Chartered Architect

  Sarah Drummond

  Head of BBC Radio Newcastle

  David Fleming

  Director, Tyne and Wear Museums

  Scott Henshall

  Fashion designer

  Deborah Hunter

  Freelance film producer

  George Loggie

  Northern Arts

  Winnie Lowes

  Northumberland County Council

  Hugh Morgan Williams

  One North East

  Bob Pendlebury

  Northumbria Tourist Board

  Liz Rees

  Chief Archivist, Tyne and Wear Archive Services

  Ione Rippeth

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  246W

  to develop new links and partnerships within and outside the sector.

  I am certain that MLAC will explore the ways in which constructive relationships can be forged between the local authorities and their representative bodies and MLAC.

  Regional Cultural Consortiums
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the membership of each regional cultural consortium. [114451]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: Membership of some Consortiums is not yet complete. Current membership is as follows:
  247W

  Consortium/Members

  Don Robson

  Chair, Northern Sport

  Jacqui Taylor

  Director, The Image Group (advertising agency)

  Sue Underwood

  English Heritage Regional Commissioner

  James Wright

  Vice-Chancellor, Newcastle University

  North West Cultural Consortium

  Chair: Felicity Goodey

  Broadcaster

  Liz Bruen

  North West Arts Board

  Paul Catcheside

  Chair, North West Library System

  John Commons

  Manchester City Council

  Colin Doyle

  North West and Cumbria Tourist Boards

  Jim Gristenthwaite

  Chair, Regional Archives Council

  Lloyd Grossman

  North West Heritage Regional Commissioner

  Guy Harkin

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Pam Hayward

  Chair, North West Museums Service

  Stephen Matthews

  Cumbria County Council

  Graham Morgan

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  David Newton

  Chair, North West Sport

  Peter Pimbley

  Wyre Borough Council

  Kath Reade

  Regional Development Agency

  Kath Robinson

  Manchester City Council

  Brenda Smith

  Managing Director, Granada TV

  South East Cultural Consortium

  Chair: Sir David Watson

  Director, University of Brighton

  Mary Baldwin

  Aylesbury Vale District Council

  Fred Bullock

  Regional Library System

  Richard Childs

  Chief Archivist, West Sussex

  David Dolman

  Sport England

  Freddie Emery-Wallis

  Hampshire County Council

  Cheryl Hall

  Kent County Council

  Jon Hartley

  Reading Borough Council

  Heather Hawker

  Surrey County Council

  Mary McAnally

  Regional Development Agency (Managing Director, Meridian TV)

  Kirsty McLeod

  English Heritage Regional Commissioner

  Stephen Phillips

  Regional Arts Board

  Robert Taylor

  South Eastern Museums Service

  Roger Thomas

  Regional Tourist Board

  South West Cultural Consortium

  Chair: Adrian Vinken

  Chief Executive, Theatre Royal (Plymouth) Ltd.

  Paul Brough

  City Archivist, Plymouth and West Devon Record Office

  Robin Bush

  Somerset County Council

  Sue Clifford

  Director, Common Ground Environment and Countryside

  Caroline Dudley

  Chair, South West Museums Council

  Pauline Dyer

  Head of Libraries and Heritage, Wiltshire County Council

  Lady Elizabeth Gass

  English Heritage Regional Commissioner

  Edward Gillespie

  Managing Director, Cheltenham Racecourse

  Alan Livingstone

  Principal, Falmouth College for Art; Chair, South West Arts

  Andrew May

  Bristol City Council

  Jeremy Payne

  Managing Director, HTV West

  Stella Pirie

  Director, Regional Development Agency; Chair, Endeavour International

  Pat Roberts

  Bristol City Council; Vice Chair, Westcountry Tourist Board

  Norman Thompson

  Restormel District Council

  Viv Vines

  Chair, South West Sports

  West Midlands Cultural Consortium

  Chair: Baroness Christine Crawley

  Member of the House of Lords

  Derrick Anderson

  Chief Executive, Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Jeff Carpenter

  West Midlands Regional Museums Council

  Stephen Clee

  Worcester City and District Council

  Maureen Compton

  Stafford Borough Council

  John Craven

  BBC Birmingham (rural issues)

  Philip Davis

  English Heritage Regional Commissioner

  Elizabeth Edmondson

  Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council

  John Fletcher

  Coventry City Council

  Mike Freeman

  Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Mary Heaney

  West Midlands Regional Library System

  Jean Holder

  Stratford-on-Avon District Council

  Peter Jenkinson

  New Walsall Art Gallery

  Christine King

  Advantage West Midlands

  William Lawrence

  Heart of England Tourist Board

  Sarah Montgomery

  General Manager, Warwick Castle

  David Moorcroft

  Chief Executive, UK Athletics

  248W 249W

  Consortium/Members

  Nina Nannar

  BBC Midlands Today

  Rod Natkiel

  Regional Arts Board

  Carl Rice

  Birmingham City Council

  Gwyn Roberts

  West Midlands Sports Board

  Richard Slawson

  Associated Architects

  Ian Squires

  Managing Director, Central Region Carlton Broadcasting

  Roger Vaughan

  Chair of Regional Archives Council

  Clare Venables

  Royal Shakespeare Company Education Officer

  Yorkshire and the Humber Cultural Consortium

  Chair: Chris Heinitz

  Chair of Local Government Association Cultural Services Executive

  David Ashton

  Regional Assembly for Yorkshire and Humberside

  Rita Britton

  Pollyanna Ltd.

  Tina Davy

  Leeds City Council

  David Gemmell

  Regional Tourist Board

  Richard Gregory

  Managing Director, Yorkshire Television

  Sue Knowles

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  Reg Littleboy

  Association of Yorks and Humber Library Services

  Pat Marsh

  Harrogate Borough Council

  Richard Morris

  English Heritage Regional Commissioner

  Christopher Price

  Regional Arts Board

  Peter Price

  Sport England

  Mike Pye

  Area Museums Council

  Novlette Rennie

  National Sports Development Co-ordinator for Sporting Equals

  Liz Rymer

  Yorkshire Screen Commission

  Alan Smith

  North Lincolnshire Council

  Margaret Talbot

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  Margaret Turner

  Regional Archives Council

  Phil Wood

  Manager, Humberside Creative Town Initiative

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the objectives of the regional cultural consortiums and make a statement on progress to date in meeting these objectives. [114452]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The aims of the eight Regional Cultural Consortiums are to:

  (i) Represent and champion the whole spectrum of cultural and creative interests in each region, including tourism and sport;

  (ii) forge links across this spectrum, encouraging a cross-cutting approach and creating a common vision expressed in a cultural strategy for the region; and

  (iii) assist in improving the delivery of cultural services.

  The Consortiums have made an excellent start towards meeting these aims. Their diverse membership, recruited from across the range of cultural, creative and local government bodies in each region will enable them to represent and bring together effectively all their sectors and all the consortiums are currently working towards producing regional cultural strategies.

  Athletics Stadium
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the proposal for a national athletics stadium was first discussed by his Department with(a) UK Athletics and (b) Sport England. [113944]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The concept of a national athletics stadium emerged in discussions with UK Athletics, the British Olympic Association and Sport England about non-Wembley options for staging athletics events shortly after the announcement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 1 December 1999, Official Report, columns 305–13.
  250W
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received since 3 March from Sport England on the subject of a possible venue for the 2005 World Athletics Championships. [113943]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: Sport England have submitted an analysis of the cost and design issues related to the brief for a venue for the 2005 World Athletics Championships proposed by UK Athletics along with an evaluation of potential sites against criteria discussed and agreed between my Department, the Government Office for London, UK Sport, UK Athletics, the 2005 Bid Team and the BOA.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial and other support he proposes to give to support bids for venues for major athletics events in England. [113935]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: My Department offers, and will continue to offer, full support to the work being taken forward by Sport England, UK Sport, UK Athletics and the British Olympic Association to establish a venue for major athletics events in England. The Government's decision not to proceed with the Wembley athletics option, combined with the extra £20 million which the Football Association proposes is returned, will create a real opportunity for athletics to develop a permanent legacy for future generations of UK athletes and one which will not rule out a future Olympic bid.

  National Stadium Monitoring Committee
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if representatives of English Partnerships were members of the National Stadium Monitoring Committee; and if he will make a statement. [113936]
  251W
  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: Representatives of English Partnerships did not attend the first meeting of the Committee on 17 February. Following informal discussions between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Chief Executive of English Partnerships in February 1999 about the concept of establishing a Task Force to co-ordinate the regeneration around the stadium, representatives of English Partnerships were invited to attend subsequent meetings held on 20 May 1999 and 15 July 1999.

  National Sports Museum
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had since May 1997 about the establishment of a national sports museum. [113736]

  Kate Hoey
  The Secretary of State and the previous Minister for Sport had two discussions about a proposal for a Museum of British Sport on London's South Bank, and one on a proposal for a National Museum of Sport near the Britannia Stadium, Stoke-on-Trent.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received since May 1997 from individuals and organisations requesting that a national sports museum be established. [113735]

  Kate Hoey
  My Department has received three representations: One for a museum of British Sport on London's South Bank, one for a National Museum of Sport near the Britannia Stadium, Stoke-on-Trent and one for a Museum of Sport and a new sporting arena in Coventry.

  Sports Links (Schools)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he is taking to encourage links between schools and local sports clubs; and if he will make a statement. [113656]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government are committed to encouraging links between schools and sport clubs that have quality junior sections.

  A role of the new School Sports Co-ordinators will be to promote links between schools and clubs. Sports Colleges, supported by the Youth Sport Trust, are beginning to develop excellent models of good practice of links between primary schools, secondary schools and sports clubs.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will place in the Library the financial accounts of the Millennium Experience as at the end of January. [R] [113116]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: The New Millennium Experience Company's Annual Report and Financial Statements for the period 1 April—31 December 1999 are due to be published by 30 June. The full year of operation will be covered in the Annual Report and Financial Statements for the period 1 January
  252W
  2000 to 31 December 2000 which will be published in 2001. I will arrange for copies to be placed in the House Libraries.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the creditors of the New Millennium Experience Company whose bills are disputed; when such bills were invoiced; and the amount in dispute in each case. [114118]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 10 March 2000, Official Report, column 838W.

  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what are the terms and conditions of contract of new(a) directors and (b) officers appointed to the New Millennium Experience Company since 1 January; and if he will provide details of all financial payments and benefits to be provided in each case. [110475]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 28 February 2000, Official Report, column 90W. No other directors have been appointed since 1 January. NMEC will continue to publish details of Directors' remuneration and benefits in its Annual Report and Financial Statements.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his proposals for the rescinding of free TV licences in households where the sole person aged 75 years or over dies; what period of time will be given after such a death before members of the household are informed of the rescinding of the free licence; who will be responsible for informing the household of the decision to rescind; and what consideration he has given to introducing a grace period in such cases. [112852]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: The Government have made no such proposals. A free television licence issued to a person aged 75 or over will not be rescinded but will remain in force until it expires, even if that person dies and there is no other person of qualifying age within that household.

  Millennium Dome
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many accounts and what value of accounts are(a) outstanding and (b) under dispute between suppliers to the Millennium Dome and the management company. [113896]

  Janet Anderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 10 March 2000,Official Report, column 838W.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had with zone sponsors in the Dome about access by the public. [111376]

  Janet Anderson
  I have had no recent discussions with any sponsors of the Millennium Experience exhibit zones about access by the public.

  Government Policy
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the statements in paragraph 27 of his Department's memorandum to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of December 1998 (HC124-II, Session 1998–99, page 169) represent the Government's current policy. [113779]

  Kate Hoey
  The statement in paragraph 27 of my Department's memorandum to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Inquiry into Staging Major Events remains Government policy. We recognise that a flexible approach is needed to ensure that governing bodies are able to put forward a bid which maximises Britain's chances of securing the event in question.

  Subtitling
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the new targets are for subtitling on(a) BBC and (b) other digital television services. [114246]

  Janet Anderson
  The provision of subtitling on BBC services is a matter for the BBC Governors and their policy is at least to match the targets set for any other broadcaster. The BBC has recently increased its targets for its new digital channels to 50 per cent. of subtitling within five years and 100 per cent. within 10 years. For other digital television services, the Broadcasting Act 1996 requires digital terrestrial broadcasters to provide subtitles on at least 50 per cent. of their services within 10 years of the start of the service. We will be beginning a review of this target in early summer.

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to phase out the use of peat compost in gardens(a) owned and (b) tended by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [110728]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The gardens owned by or in the care of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are managed and tended by more than one body. The steps taken to phase out the use of peat compost by each of those bodies are as follows:

  (i) Historic Royal Palaces, which manages the unoccupied Historic Royal Palaces, no longer uses peat to condition soil for planting. However, it does use a moss peat based compost for growing plants in its nursery at Hampton Court Palace. It has carried out trials of non-peat based products but has found them unsatisfactory in terms of both performance and cost. HRP will continue to try alternatives to peat based products in the nursery, and should something be found that performs well and is affordable, it will continue to use it.

  (ii) The Royal Household, which manages the occupied Royal Palaces, has been using peat-free compost since August 1999 and will continue to do so.

  (iii) The Royal Parks Agency, which manages the eight Royal Parks, avoids using peat compost in the Royal Parks unless there is no effective, horticultural alternative to doing so.

  (iv) English Heritage, which manages properties in the care of the Secretary of State, seeks to avoid the use of peat wherever possible, and encourages its gardening staff to use peat alternatives.

  Sport in Schools
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) when he last met representatives of the Central Council for Physical Recreation to discuss sport in schools; [114441]

  (2) when he last met representatives of the National Playing Fields Association to discuss sport in schools; [114440]

  (3) when he last met representatives of the Local Government Association to discuss sport in schools. [114439]

  Kate Hoey
  I meet all of these organisations regularly to discuss a number of issues relating to sport including sport in schools. I met the Local Government Association most recently on 8 March, the National Playing Fields Association on 15 February and attended the Central Council for Physical Recreation conference on 8 December 1999.

  Multiplex Digital Radio
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if it is his policy that multiplex digital radio should extend diversity and choice within the radio broadcasting spectrum. [114476]

  Janet Anderson
  Government policy is to ensure plurality and diversity of national and local digital radio services, which cater for the tastes and interests of a broad cross section of the UK population, subject to constraints on spectrum available for new services. Digital radio is at an early stage of development and present spectrum allocations enable only one national multiplex for BBC services and one national commercial multiplex operated by Digital One. The Radio Authority is continuing to advertise one local digital multiplex licence a month during 2000.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the restrictions that apply to applications for digital multiplex broadcast licences extend to the provision of programme streams within the multiplex. [114475]

  Janet Anderson
  The Broadcasting Act 1990 (as amended by the Broadcasting Act 1996) disqualifies certain persons from holding licences to provide digital programme services or digital sound programme services. However, it may be possible for persons disqualified under the religious ownership rules to provide programmes for a licensee, subject to compliance with the appropriate Independent Television Commission and Radio Authority Codes.

CABINET OFFICE

  Regional Policy
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what representations the Performance and Innovation Unit has received in relation to its recommendation that a new unit be set up to co-ordinate the Government's approach to the regions. [113159]
  255W
  Mr. Stringer
  The PIU consulted extensively and received representations from a wide range of interests in the course of its study on the role of central Government at regional and local level. The PIU' s report was endorsed by Ministers and published on 16 February; and views on its conclusions are still being received.

  Press Office
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the(a) Civil Service grade and (b) areas of responsibility of each of the staff employed in the Cabinet Office Press Office. [114751]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Cabinet Office Press Office is arranged as follows:Senior Civil Servant—Director of Information
  One Band A—Head of News and Deputy Director of Information
  One Band A and one Band 2—Minister for the Cabinet Office, Duchy of Lancaster, Security and Intelligence Matters, Social Exclusion policies
  Two Band B2s—Minister of State for the Cabinet Office, Better Government for Older People, Central IT Unit, Performance and Innovation Unit and Public Service Delivery
  Two Band B2s—The Government's policy on the misuse of drugs and the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator and his Deputy
  Three Band B2s—Parliamentary Secretary—Cabinet Office (Graham Stringer), Regulatory Impact Unit, Civil Service Issues, Charter Mark and Centre for Policy and Management Studies
  One Band A and two Band B2s—Ministerial Group on Biotechnology and Genetic Modification and Co-ordination of the Government's policy
  One Band A and two Band B2s—Leader of the House of Lords, Women's Issues and Modernisation of the House of Lords. Minister of State for the Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer) including his responsibilities for the Millennium Dome and Active Communities
  One Band A and one Band B2—Leader of the House of Commons, Parliamentary Secretary—Privy Council Office (Paddy Tipping), Commissioner for Public Appointments, Ministers' and MPs' pay, Ministerial Code, Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA), Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and Honours
  Two Band B2s—Publication and Publicity
  One Band B2—Forward Planning and Finance.

  In addition the following staff are employed to support the above press offices: One B2, three B1s, three C2s and one C1.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what was the budget for running the Cabinet Office Press Office in each of the last 10 financial years. [114752]
  256W
  Mr. Stringer
  The actual cost for running the Cabinet Office Press Office, including all staff costs, running costs and capital spend, has been:

  Year

  £

  1995–96

  585,110

  1996–97

  1,562,000

  1997–98

  1,322,560

  1998–99

  1,640,480

  1999–2000

  11,918,000

  1 Allocated Budget

  Note:

  Figures for previous years are not available

  The figures have been rising steadily due to the increased range of Cabinet Office responsibilities.

  Since 1996–97 the Cabinet Office Press Office has administered a regional network of press officers to carry out work on behalf of central Government.

  GM Communications Unit
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the role of the GM Communications Unit. [114753]

  Mr. Stringer
  The GM Communications Unit is staffed by civil servants. They work strictly in accordance with the principles set out in the Guidance on the work of the Government Information Service.

  The unit co-ordinates and liaises with the key Government Departments which have policy interests on GM issues. They also act as a first port of call for journalists. By setting up the communications unit the Government have positively responded to a key recommendation from the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, that the Government provide leadership in the GM debate.

  More recently (7 March 2000) the Agriculture Select Committee published a report calling for confusion over GM issues to be replaced by rational debate and education. The unit aims to help meet that challenge.

  The unit's role is to communicate Government policy. It is stated Government policy to raise public understanding of the facts about GM issues.

  Regional Initiatives
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which of her Department's regional initiatives will come under the remit of the new unit to co-ordinate the Government's approach to the regions. [113154]

  Mr. Stringer
  The PIU report "Reaching Out: The Role of Central Government at Regional and Local Level" sets out the intended key functions of the co-ordinating unit—these are listed on page 115 of the report, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

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.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to open the annual exhibition of the Worshipful Company of Painter-Stainers in the City of London on Friday 17th, March when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

NHS Treatments
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to ensure that those patients currently receiving beneficial National Health Service treatments or drug therapies will not be disadvantaged when discriminatory postcode prescribing is abolished.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will help to end the current inequities of access by advising which treatments are clinically and cost effective. Where the institute advises against the use of a treatment, it will give guidance about patients currently receiving it. In some cases it may be possible to switch patients to more effective therapy.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Answer, which, of course, I do not find satisfactory. We were told that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) would constitute a levelling up, not a levelling down. Will the Minister assure me that in cases where treatments are considered costly but where research has shown that they are definitely effective—such as Beta Interferon for multiple sclerosis and the taxanes for ovarian and breast cancer—those patients receiving such treatments will be allowed to continue to receive them? It is bad enough for people not to be able to receive a treatment, but to receive effective, though costly, treatment and then have it taken away is rather like an employee whose firm is taken over and finds that his or her wages are cut. Will the Minister assure me that that will not happen?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I can best reiterate the point that I made in my initial Answer; namely, we must take into account the advice that
1538
NICE gives in relation to each individual drug or therapy. That is the Government's position. We shall, of course, consider that advice carefully as and when we receive it. As regards the point about levelling up, this process is about levelling up. The history of the NHS has shown considerable inconsistency in the availability of, for example, new treatments and new drugs. Having made a judgment about whether a particular treatment is clinically and cost effective, the aim of NICE is to ensure that it is introduced in a consistent way throughout the whole of the National Health Service.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, would the Minister care to give advice to a doctor faced with postcode prescribing affecting the treatment that he thinks would benefit a patient? Should be not tell him or her about the existence of a treatment; or lie, as some cancer specialists admit that they have to do? Or would he tell the patient about a treatment but say that the health authority cannot afford it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is not for me to advise clinicians in the exercise of their clinical judgment. Our concern is to ensure that the situation which has existed for many years of woefully inconsistent availability of treatments is ended. We believe that the processes we have set in train in the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the advice that it can give on whether treatments are cost effective and clinically effective, the introduction of clinical governance at local level and the involvement of the Commission for Health Improvement will enable us to ensure that the public receive high quality, consistent care across the country.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, will the Minister answer one simple question? Can he assure the House that when the changes in the arrangements are introduced no patients will be worse off than they are now?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I refer to the matter of a current treatment which is being evaluated by NICE where the institute advises against the use of that treatment. We have asked NICE to give us its best advice on what should happen in those circumstances. Over the years the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will have referred to it many treatments and many medicines. I do not believe that one can state a simple principle in relation to all the potential future treatments and drugs. However, as I say—this is important—we shall ask NICE to give us advice in relation to each treatment or medicine.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, my noble friend refers to cost effectiveness. Who judges that; the patient suffering the pain, or the Minister?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are various considerations which the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will have to take into account.

1539
First, it must ensure that the best possible evidence is available as to the clinical effectiveness of a treatment. The institute then has to take into account the effectiveness of the treatment alongside issues of resources. NICE develops evaluation reports which are considered by appraisal committees. Draft guidelines are circulated for comment and careful note is taken of all those considerations. At the end of the day, of course, a judgment has to be made as to whether a particular treatment or medicine is cost effective. I believe that we have set in place a mechanism to ensure that we get the best possible advice and a pattern of consistency across the country.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does the Minister recognise the growing practice among general practitioners of issuing post-dated prescriptions for drugs? Does he approve of this practice?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. I have not come across such an instance. If the noble Lord cares to write to me about this matter, I shall be happy to look into it.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister recall that I have written to him on a number of occasions about people who require treatment through environmental medicine because nothing else has succeeded? Is he aware that, in order to get such treatment validated, I have had meetings with representatives of NICE? I have found them extremely co-operative, helpful and very understanding of the situation. They have given me and the doctor practitioner a large amount of advice on how to get the treatment validated. Will the Minister pass my thanks on to them?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is the kind of supplementary question I am always happy to agree to. The House can have confidence in the process. We have brought together some extremely high calibre people to assist the NHS in ensuring that the best possible treatments are available throughout the whole of the health service. Careful appraisals and an ability for organisations to submit their views to the commission give us a great deal of confidence in the impact that this will have in the future.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, apart from clinical and cost effectiveness, the other part of NICE's remit is to assess the effective use of available resources? Does not that mean that NICE will be the judge and jury on the affordability of treatments in a national context? How will that not prevent a situation in which doctors find themselves obliged to withdraw established effective treatments from patients who have been receiving them?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not follow the noble Earl's argument. As I have said, traditionally, new treatments in the NHS have been introduced in a very patchy way, as has the phasing out
1540
of old treatments which have proven to be not very effective, and the process has taken longer than it should. The whole impact of NICE is to enable us to speed up the process of phasing out ineffective treatments and to speed up the introduction of new, effective treatments. Yes, NICE will advise on clinical and cost effectiveness, but it is for Ministers to decide the overall resources of the NHS.
As to the issue of absolute affordability, it is worth making the point that, in relation to some of the medicines we have referred to NICE for appraisal, some health authorities have been funding them and others have not. That is a reflection of the inconsistency of the current decision-making process. It is the very reason why we need the mechanisms of NICE to ensure greater consistency in the NHS.

Hospital Beds
2.46 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they reconcile their private finance initiative hospital building programme with the recent findings of the national beds inquiry.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the bed modelling for the 16 major acute hospital projects currently being built under the PFI scheme considers the same major factors and drivers as identified in the national beds inquiry. To be approved, PFI schemes need to demonstrate flexibility. Experience already shows that changes can be accommodated at PEI hospitals.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not clear that the first PFI schemes being completed involve a reduction of 30 per cent of available beds and cuts in staff numbers of up to 25 per cent? The national beds inquiry made clear that we are at least 4,000 beds short. Last year 56,000 operations were cancelled due to lack of beds. Is it not time that the Government recognised, like the Institute for Public Policy Research, that the economics of PFI schemes are extremely unsound and that they will cost the NHS more money in the future while forcing a continuing and disastrous reduction in the numbers of beds available? Or is the NHS, after the Prime Minister's recent comments, planning to fill the gap with private beds?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite wrong. Public/private partnerships enable us to combine the best of the public sector—particularly in regard to the direct delivery of clinical services—with the best of private sector skills in the management and financing of major capital projects such as the 16 new hospitals now in train. The NHS has had unhappy experience of the traditional route for capital builds going back to its foundation. Many schemes have taken years and years to bring to fruition. I am sure that many noble Lords will know of

1541
instances where there has been a phase one, a phase two, a phase three and a phase four in the building of a hospital, which can take up to 20 years. With the public/private partnership arrangement we can build whole hospitals at a very quick pace.
As to beds, there are two factors to bear in mind. First, in a comparison between outline cases using the traditional capital route and the PEI route, there does not appear to be any difference in the number of beds planned. Secondly, of course we need to take notice of the national beds inquiry and to ensure that we have the flexibility to take account of the changes we need to make. We recognise that we need to increase the number of beds in this country and to use the ones we do have more effectively.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if an NHS trust is unable to provide an urgent operation to a patient, there is no ideological barrier to the trust placing that patient somewhere in the private sector? If he agrees that there is no such barrier, has that message been transmitted to the chief executives of NHS trusts?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government have made the position clear. Where the NHS requires extra provision to be made and where it is not available within the NHS it can then look to the private sector. The policy is quite clear.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister note that many on this side of the House agree with his outline of the future in relation to the initiatives being undertaken by the Labour Government? However, will he explain in slightly more detail how he sees the delivery of these hospitals as regards timescale and issues of that nature?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the national beds inquiry is currently being consulted upon. We expect the consultation period to run to 15th May. We shall then be able to make decisions in developing a national strategy for providing NHS beds in the future. I believe that the current capital programme with the PFI and conventional funding, which is enabling us to build a record number of new hospitals, will allow us to take account of the inquiry as quickly as possible.

Hotels: Accommodation Grading
2.50 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government whether they will establish a statutory hotel registration scheme.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are no plans to introduce a statutory scheme at the present time. First, we want to evaluate the voluntary approach under the new quality standards to see whether it results in increased take-up and improved
1542
quality. If it does not, we shall consider introducing statutory measures, but only if the burden of any such new regulation can be justified.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. I declare an interest as vice-president of the Northumbria Tourist Board and vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Tourism. Is my noble friend aware that, rather surprisingly, three-quarters of the members of the Association of British Travel Agents support a statutory scheme? Does he agree that there is a greater demand than ever on the part of consumers for visibly high standards, not only in hotels but in other aspects of holiday provision'? I recognise that there are difficulties; however, could we not learn a great deal from the many countries which have operated such a scheme for many years? I remind my noble friend that this matter was included in the Labour Party manifesto at the general election.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with my noble friend's final point. The Labour Party manifesto stated that we would introduce new quality assurance in hotel accommodation. We did not say that it would necessarily be statutory. We went on to say in the document, Breaking New Ground, that should the voluntary approach not be a success, Labour would move towards the second step; namely, the introduction of a statutory national accommodation grading scheme.
My noble friend is right: there is consumer demand for high standards. However, it must be recognised that the announcement last autumn of consistent, unitary standards between the AA, the RAC and the English Tourism Council is a major step in that direction. The inspectors are now working to common standards to provide a common classification in England and are, in effect, acting as small business advisers, helping hotels and others to improve their own standards. The voluntary scheme, which is achieving a 50 per cent take-up, is already leading to improvement.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, should there not be a "national beds inquiry" in the tourism sector in this country? Given that tourism is the quintessential industry of the European single market, will the Government ensure appropriate consultation and cooperation with our EU partners should any registration scheme of the type described he contemplated?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, tourism registration schemes are a matter for national governments, not for the European Union. They exist in France and the Netherlands but not in other European countries. As to quality in this country, the steps that we have already announced in the Tourism Strategy are having an effect.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is certainly a need to raise the

1543
standard of hotel accommodation, particularly at the affordable end of the sector and especially in London? Will the Government undertake to work closely on this issue with next mayor of London, whoever that may be?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. The next mayor of London, whoever that may be, will of course have responsibilities in the tourism sector. The noble Baroness is right to say that it is not just a matter of hotels, but also of guest-houses, boarding houses and self-catering accommodation. We are making progress in those areas as well.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, is it not difficult for voluntary schemes to create standards anywhere near those of a statutory scheme? The voluntary schemes operate according to different criteria; they do not have the same standards; it is difficult for customers to know which are reliable; and they are not comprehensive. Does he agree that the Automobile Association, which has had a voluntary scheme for many years, having been taken over by Centrica now seems more interested in selling gas appliances than travel services to motorists and other travellers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that the Automobile Association's breakdown service has anything to do with its classification of tourist accommodation. My noble friend does not give adequate recognition to the fact that in autumn last year we introduced a unified scheme between the English Tourism Council, the Automobile Association and the RAC. They do have common standards which are known to all, and their inspectors work to common standards. I think that my noble friend is being unduly gloomy.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the Minister speaks of standards. Standards may well be high, but so are costs, and people who want to book hotels are surely most in need of objective, rather than subjective, ratings. At present, many of the voluntary ratings leave great areas of doubt. One couple's idea of a "well-furnished" bedroom may be very different from that of another couple. Does the noble Lord agree that it is therefore not surprising, given the cost of hotel accommodation here compared, for example, with that in France and Italy, that many people who travel prefer bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which is proliferating throughout the country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I simply do not think that the noble Viscount is right. The voluntary scheme, jointly operated by the AA, the RAC and the English Tourism Council, applies objective standards to hotel and guest-house accommodation which are comparable to those of the Nomenclature Nationale and other standards in France. The simple difference is that it is not compulsory in the same way. I do not think that it can be said that there is a single version of a statutory
1544
scheme. A statutory scheme may consist simply of registration; it may require self-regulation, inspection to minimum standards, or inspection to new quality standards. There is a whole range of ways in which statutory schemes could be imposed, but it is better to try the voluntary schemes first and to give them a chance to operate.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that our traditional seaside towns still provide extremely good value for money both to British visitors and to visitors from abroad? However, does he further agree that many are showing signs of wear and tear from their glory days? What plans do the Government have to give specific help to the seaside towns?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is referring in particular to Blackpool. He will be pleased to know, if he does not know already, that there are local schemes in Scarborough and Blackpool which go further than the existing voluntary schemes and which will achieve some of the benefits that have been identified in more universal schemes. I congratulate Scarborough and Blackpool on what they are doing and I hope that other seaside towns will follow their example.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Minister tell me about accommodation in pubs? I understand that there is a Good Pub Guide. Who compiles that; and is it to be relied on?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the Good Pub Guide is outside the sphere of government control—and long may it continue!

Grammar and Comprehensive Schools
3 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now support the continuance of the principle of selection by ability in some maintained British schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, we believe that the selection of children by schools on the basis of ability is not in the best interests of children, is divisive and restricts parental choice. We want an education system that benefits the many, not the few, and for all children in all schools to receive good quality education.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept from me that we support very strongly the right of the Prime Minister and his ministerial and parliamentary colleagues to make choices for their own children to attend schools which select on the

1545
basis of interview and/or examination? Why is it that that choice cannot be extended to all parents for their own children?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have already said that the Government believe that a non-selective system is one that is likely to serve the needs of all children. I do not believe that there is any support for a move towards a selective system. The noble Baroness's own government in 1996 produced a White Paper which sought to expand grammar school provision. They sent out a consultation document which pursued the idea of a grammar school in every town. That produced over 600 responses. Only 2 per cent supported the proposal and 69 per cent strongly opposed giving schools greater freedom to select pupils. I am answering the noble Baroness's question. Most parents do not wish to have the opportunity to send their children to schools which select by ability. Nor does the Prime Minister send his children to a school which selects by ability; it is a comprehensive school.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with what appears to me to be the case; namely, that more grammar schools became comprehensives during the period in which the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Secretary of State for Education than at any other comparable period? If so, what deductions does my noble friend draw?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Perhaps I may confirm the statistics. Between 1970 and 1974 when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Secretary of State for Education and Science—that was, I believe, her position at the time—she approved 91 per cent of secondary reorganisation plans submitted to her, more than any other Minister before or since. In answer to my noble friend, I deduce from that that the Conservative Party has not been the defender of grammar schools that the noble Baroness claims it to be.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, was the Minister present in 1995 when Mr David Blunkett made a speech in which he said:
"Watch my lips: no selection either by interview or examination under a Labour government'"?
As I now believe that that was a joke, can the noble Baroness tell me whether the joke was, "Watch my lips" or "No selection by interview or examination under a Labour government"?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was there at the time. In using the expression, "Watch my lips", the Secretary of State was parodying the famous phrase coined by Mr George Bush. There may be noble Lords who do not remember it. My right honourable friend did not say that the policy was a joke; indeed, he made it absolutely clear at the time, and has done since, that there should be no more grammar schools. He made clear in many media interviews both before and after the general election that there would be no more
1546
grammar schools and no further selection based on the 11-plus. It is our policy to oppose selection on ability or through interviews.
Lord Tope: My Lords, does the Minister agree that all that needs to be said on this matter was said yesterday in a one-and-a-half-hour debate on an amendment and will no doubt be repeated at similar length this afternoon when she repeats a Statement? Therefore, rather than reiterate well known entrenched views and statements, can the Minister tell the House what lessons the Government have learnt from their handling of this issue?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that this is a total distraction. However, the distraction has not been introduced by me but by the Opposition, who wish to take up parliamentary time on this matter. We believe that if we are to consider education we should debate the important questions of how to raise standards in schools, improve quality and narrow the gap between those young people who are extremely successful in our schools and those who fail. Regrettably, that gap was not narrowed under the previous administration.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the average performance of the top quarter of pupils at comprehensive schools is just as good as that achieved at grammar schools? Is that not proof that comprehensives are at least as effective as grammar schools in providing a first-class education?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can confirm that. I provide my noble friend and the House with the statistics. The average performance of the top 24 per cent of pupils in maintained comprehensive schools is slightly higher than that in grammar schools. The percentage of pupils in grammar schools who achieve five-plus grades A to C at GCSE and GNVQ is 95.4 per cent. The figure for a similar level of achievement in comprehensive schools is 100 per cent. That demonstrates without doubt that comprehensive schools are doing extremely well.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the first debate my noble friend Lady Blackstone will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on selection in education. That will be followed by my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on inherited SER PS.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Whitaker set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall to two-and-a-half hours.—(Baroness Jay. of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education in Developing Countries
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker Baroness Whitaker rose to call attention to the role of education in developing countries; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful for an opportunity to open a debate on this subject at this time. There is a growing campaign to influence the World Education Forum in Dakar next month to agree programmes to deliver primary education for all children by 2015. That is not a new target. In 1990 at the predecessor World Conference on Education all 155 member governments promised to ensure a good basic education for all children by the end of the decade. When target dates move, sometimes the reason is greater realism, which at least would be evidence of commitment, but sometimes the reason is lack of political will. That is why a campaign is important now.
When we consider why education is so important in developing countries we usually think of primary education. Primary education is now acknowledged to be key to development. Those 130 million children who are not in primary school will miss out on a fundamental human right, but their countries will be deprived of the springboard which literacy gives to capability, income generation, better awareness of health, hygiene and nutrition and democratic participation, all of which are necessary prerequisites for economic growth.
The Department for International Development has significantly increased the proportion of funds that go to primary education, including new bilateral commitments of over £300 million, which is welcome. Is it enough if we look at the benefits? From Adam Smith on, people have lamented the lack of expenditure on this most valuable of public goods. To quote a more modern source,
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance".
The starkest of the indices of poverty—infant mortality—has a close correlation with the lack of primary education enrolment. I am indebted to Amartya Sen, in his brilliant book, Development as Freedom, for a comparison between the poorest countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and poor states in the much richer India, which shows that where the adult literacy rate is higher in those African countries, even with their poverty, infant mortality is lower. So it is particularly tragic that in some African countries such as Kenya—I was there last November—educational standards are dropping.
Amartya Sen draws particular attention to the gain from sending girls—two-thirds of the 130 million—to primary school, not only because their right to education is often not equally regarded but because of the value of women as agents of economic development and raisers of families, whose planning, health and nutrition depend so much on their mothers' knowledge; as economic decision makers and income generators in their own right; and as drivers to ensure that the community values school for children.
The World Bank agrees with him in ascribing a higher social return on investing in girl's primary education. A child's chance of survival can be increased by as much as half if the mother has been to primary school. Following this precept, the Government of Bangladesh instituted scholarship schemes to bring girls' attendance up to that of boys. As the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, said,
"a society which empowers its women is sure to succeed".
But education needs time, as well as far more abundant resources of its own. When I visited DfIDfunded projects in Mali for a small NGO whose board I am on—SoS Sahel—there was a striking difference between villages with piped water and those without. In those with standpipes, the children went to school. In the others, not only did the children have no time to play—and a village where the children do not play is a poignant sight—but the girls fetched water and did housework, and the boys worked all day in the fields. Sadly, education in Mali was not then compulsory. But in one village, a small amount of intermediate technology had enabled the women to grind millet mechanically rather than pound it laboriously by hand. This is what they did with the time they saved: some of the women made extra food for sale; some went to adult literacy classes; some learnt to produce a business plan for the cultivation and sale of produce; and, as a matter of fact, their husbands told me that the women had time to make more demands on them, which they appreciated. Even more significantly, the women also gave their daughters time: they sent them to school. In that region of Mali at that time one quarter of the boys went to primary school but only 16 per cent of the girls. It was the first year, I was told, that the whole year's enrolment stayed at school until the end of the year.
So provision for education needs to be kept in equilibrium with other necessary technical development. And it is fundamentally undermined by the catastrophes, natural and man-made, which sweep across countries which have so few defences. Oxfam, whose work and ideas make such a notable contribution to development—the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, will speak further about that—tells us that in Zambia a high proportion of teachers has died from AIDS, and in Angola and Sudan education expenditure has fallen by one-third since their lingering wars began.
To prioritise primary education does not alter the need for more targeted investment in secondary and adult education, including human rights education, tertiary, technical and vocational education and in

1549
building the capability which fits local need. DfID's approach to funding programmes that match local needs is to be commended, as is their approach to partnership with NGOs which share the same values. And the Commonwealth Secretariat, among other strategic programmes, has provided expertise attuned to local needs for training teachers and organising examination boards. Of course, governments themselves also need to take vocational and other education in hand. I was impressed by the development of agricultural and forest conservation expertise which I encountered in Kenya—evidence of a growing commitment in the public service.
Before I conclude this rapid tour d'horizon I should like to make a more general point about the inseparable companion of education—research. The unique capacity of the international institutions can influence research towards much greater responsiveness to the needs of poor countries. If, for instance, a malaria vaccine or better crop productivity is to claim a share of resources commensurate with need, the international community needs to be more active, including in respect of intellectual property rights whose exercise can penalise developing countries. It is long-term finance that is needed for global public goods like humanitarian research, not loans from the World Bank; and research capacity needs to be developed in the countries themselves.
In conclusion, the World Bank annual report on the state of the world's poor last year said that progress in education had stalled. Since then, my right honourable friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development have succeeded in a splendid campaign to relieve the debt of the most heavily indebted poor countries. Is it not time for another campaign: to earmark money saved in debt relief for education, particularly primary education; to persuade donor countries to increase bilateral aid; to influence the international community to fund more appropriate long-term research; and to enable governments themselves to deliver the promise that all children will have a basic education? The effect would not only be humanitarian. Social stability, greater chances of peace and economic development follow from universal education. Indeed, they cannot arrive in its absence. I look forward to the contributions to the debate. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for introducing a debate on such an interesting subject. Education is the means to improve life for the many illiterate people in the world. The majority are the female population: the women and girls.
Today in The Times there is a detailed report of a scam whereby people from the UK are being asked to send money to help children to receive education in Uganda. Investigation has revealed that the money is not being put to the use for which it is sought. It is all very unfortunate and those who have been conned in this way will be badly hurt by the experience.
1550
For the past 10 years, I have been the chairman of PLAN International UK, a child-sponsorship-based charity working to the benefit of children and their communities for long-term sustainable development. In the UK, our donors give more than £14 million a year and internationally PLAN raises more than £160 million a year. Twenty-seven per cent of the budget is spent on education.
Often, our donors are not well off, but they give because they feel that others have greater needs. It is important that donors can feel confident that the money is being put to good use and that the agencies to which they are entrusting their donations have a presence on the ground in the development country and a strict audit of expenditure.
Money is necessary, but quality and practicality of the education programme are also essential. There needs to be a long-term commitment and that will work well only if it meets the needs of the local community. I want to read a comment on Niger by Dr Sathya, the PLAN learning adviser, himself an Indian. He writes:
"I have travelled now in more than 25 developing countries so far and observed the life of the poor in rural and urban areas and how they respond to both formal as well as non-formal education programmes. I have never seen in any other country such high extreme poverty and illiteracy that I witnessed recently in Niger. At the current rate, it will take forty years for Niger to achieve primary education for all.
Most countries' education systems are rooted in human capital theory and promise a better life for educated people. But in Niger, there is no evidence what so ever for this. The entire education system based on the French system is ill equipped to meet the educational needs of people ill rural areas. [The] formal education system in Niger is essentially a mechanism for separating out a French-speaking elite from the masses. Understanding this, the people in Niger are increasingly becoming apathetic towards it. This is evident in the operation of formal primary schools and the enrolment and literacy figures. With only 30 out of every 100 children [going] to primary schools and only 14 per cent of the adults (10 per cent females) who can read and write, the situation is catastrophic. In villages that PLAN International has selected to work the gross primary school enrolment rates are as low as 3 to 14 per cent …
What are the reasons for the current situation? Due to the predominantly subsistence character of the rural economy in Niger, agricultural practices and animal husbandry are primitive and labour intensive. Therefore they demand labour from every able bodied person—adult and child. I saw very young children (approximately four years and above)—boys as well as girls, involved in household chores, on-farm and off-farm activities … I also saw children involved in bellowing at a blacksmith's work place in a hazardous environment. Women's working hours range from 12 to 15 hours. A typical day of most women begins about 5 or 5.30 a.m. with pounding of millet and ends around 9 p.m. They spend 3 to 4 hours a day to fetch water in a hot and dusty environment. Therefore organisations aimed at improving enrolments and literacy should take these factors more seriously and allow flexibility while designing education programmes".
I myself in Tanzania saw a child sitting beside a hole in the ground with a small yoghurt mug on the end of a long stick waiting for enough water to seep in so that he could dip one cupful out and put it in a bucket and then return to the same task again. In a nearby village, I saw where we had installed a water supply for these people—indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, mentioned a similar experience—where the child with a touch of a hand could fill a bucket with water. That child had all those extra hours to go for education.

1551
The same applies to fuel. If people can be helped to grow trees which will provide fuel, they do not have to walk miles through areas denuded of forestation in order to find fuel with which to cook food.
PLAN International also states:
"PLAN International's efforts will be mainly to support the village development committees to organise and manage progressive non-formal community schools. These schools will meet the educational needs of children, youths and adults".
In some areas, school hours have been changed to suit the occupation of the people. Instead of regular hours, there might be no school classes when, for instance, the produce has to be harvested. Everyone in the village can turn out to gather it in. A certain number of hours each day may be needed to collect water or fuel or to perform agricultural tasks. In that situation, it is more effective to reduce the number of school hours than to have long, formal hours when no one attends.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, mentioned the conference in Senegal. PLAN is running a project in Senegal where less than half the population is literate. Again, we are faced with an intractable problem in rural areas and are trying to set school hours which fit in with the children. We are undertaking a scheme in collaboration with the Senegalese Ministry of Education and two local NGOs. It is going well because the teacher, who is a young graduate volunteer, is hosted by the local community and lives with them. He is teaching a combination of traditional subjects combined with literacy, and it is working well. We must examine such practical plans if we want to create educational opportunities.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for introducing this important subject. I declare an initial interest; it is my connection with the Council for Education in the Commonwealth. Forty years ago, I was one of its founders as an all-party organisation and I am still connected with it.
In the limited time at our disposal, I want to emphasise two aspects. The first is the fundamental importance of the education aid budget within the overall development strategy. I should be grateful for some reassurance on that from the Government as I find it difficult to disentangle the figures. Will they confirm that the proportion of education aid as against our overall aid budget has not reduced in recent years?
My second and more pertinent point—I shall be a little more critical than the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker—relates to the need for a better mix of expenditure within the educational aid budget. All the emphasis in UK policy is on basic education. I agree with the noble Baroness that the needs are real and obviously there is an issue of priority; she emphasised the education of girls who will be tomorrow's mothers. However, it is important that a proper balance is maintained in our support for education in developing countries. Primary education takes place in local
1552
languages and must be grounded in local cultures. The need is for money for teachers' salaries, for better classrooms and better schools, and for better reading materials and so forth. Frankly, unless we are prepared to make available large sums of freely spendable cash, it is not clear that countries such as Britain are best placed to support basic education on the substantial scale of the ambitious targets that have just been described.
In my view, we are better placed to help in terms of technical, vocational and higher education. Recently, UNESCO and the World Bank issued a report making a case for higher education development support and for a better balance in support of education in developing countries. I should like to use the opportunity of this debate to ask the Government to give some fresh consideration to that particular point.
It is most unfortunate that Britain's policy of full-cost fees for students from abroad and the reduction in the number of publicly funded scholarships under the aid programme have taken such a serious toll of students from the poorest countries. The number of students from the European Union, whom, very properly in my view, we treat as equals under our memberships obligations, has increased more than 10 times in United Kingdom universities since 1979, whereas the number from the poorest Commonwealth countries has declined by 49 per cent during that period. Moreover, some of the scholarship schemes introduced to mitigate the effects of full-cost fees have been cut back severely under DfID's Technical Cooperation Training Programme. They have been reduced from about 12,000 places 10 years ago to approximately 1,500 now. The Government should look carefully at those very serious figures.
DfID's 1999 departmental report published in March last year talks with legitimate pride but, perhaps I may add, just a little dogmatically, of concentrating its resources on primary schools and gender inequality. Of the 26 paragraphs in the annual report on education, only two deal with what are described—perhaps I am over-sensitive to the language but I sensed a certain disdain—as "more conventional scholarship schemes". They included such schemes as the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan.
Education is one of the essential cements that hold the Commonwealth together and give it meaning in the modern world. Yet the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan has been allowed to shrink and only eight or nine of the 54 countries now give awards. However, I believe that there is still a lot of life in it. The University of the South Pacific in Fiji, for example, now funds a fellowship for the first time. I pay tribute to the United Kingdom Government, who still play a full part by providing 200 to 300 places. Research into that scheme shows that approximately 30 of the former Commonwealth scholars or fellows have gone on to be vice-chancellors in universities in their own countries. Others have become Ministers and leaders of public life. It is a rich harvest, but one which at present is at some risk from our priorities and our own aid policy in this field.

1553
I should like to plead with DfID to give a wider and more imaginative impulse to its policy of educational aid, battling not only against poverty and illiteracy but encouraging an educated leadership, capable of sustaining decent civil societies in their independent countries. I believe that DfID has achievements to trumpet, but it does not make enough of them; for example, with regard to books. DfID's reference to them is confined to worthy remarks about the battle against illiteracy, but there is nothing about the success of Book Aid, for example, which DfID assists with a grant of £200,000. When I was first involved with Book Aid some years ago, its annual income was £123,000; today it is £1.5 million from a variety of sources. It is promoting local publishing in Africa and fruitful partnerships with NGOs.
This is supposed to be joined-up government. Valuable educational work is being done, partly by DIM, partly by the FCO, and partly by NGOs with encouragement from various government departments; for example, in training journalists around the world in the skills of unbiased reporting. Both the BBC World Service Trust and the Thomson Foundation, of which I am a trustee, carry out good work in this area with funding from, among others, DfID. The BBC World Service on an FCO vote is now the world leader with 151 million listeners and a most powerful educational force.
There will shortly be a major conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers in Canada. I should like to plead with the Government to give an imaginative lead at that conference. Perhaps they will seek a Commonwealth education charter or perhaps go on to create a Commonwealth education council, as they did in the business field at the South African CHOGM a year or so ago. But in a Commonwealth where 85 per cent of the citizens—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am dreadfully sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. When seven minutes are shown on the Clock, the speaker's time is completed. The Minister will have no time at all to reply if everyone goes over their time by two minutes.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness and to the House. I have reached my last few words. I simply plead that in a Commonwealth where the citizens are so poor, we should educate for democracy and ensure that that matches education against illiteracy.
3.35 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, there is no doubt that one of the greatest challenges which will face developing countries in the 21st century will be the need to tackle the education crisis, particularly in countries such as India, South Africa (where I come from) and the African continent. There is no doubt that tackling the education crisis would have a major knock-on effect in reducing poverty, infant mortality and crime. I mention crime because that has become a major concern in South Africa.
1554
I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for having given us the opportunity today to raise this vexed issue. The statistics which we have heard, and which I am sure we shall continue to hear, make very stark reading. One in four adults—that equates to 872 million people—in the developing world is illiterate. That number is rising, with sub-Saharan Africa accounting for one-third of the total out-of-school population. Every year almost 12 million children under the age of five die needlessly of infectious diseases, including AIDS—all associated with poverty. I understand that each additional year spent by their mothers in primary school would lower the risk of premature child deaths by almost 8 per cent.
It is a well known fact that one of the reasons why many children fail to attend school in developing countries is that their families are expected to pay for them, which many simply cannot afford to do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has already mentioned, 50 years ago the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed free and compulsory education to be a basic human right. With teaching standards in many developing countries being very low, compounded by over-crowded classes and, again, as the noble Baroness mentioned, with over 90 million girls of primary school age around the world not in school, the challenge to provide primary education for all appears to be several decades away. Originally, it was estimated that by the year 2000 all children would be educated to primary school level. The estimate was then extended to 2015. It now looks highly unlikely that it will be reached by 2030.
However, there is much to be positive about. Through the ongoing support of the World Bank, UNESCO and the many hundreds of thousands of NGOs, many of which come from Britain, the world has made major strides in expanding access to primary and secondary education. The advent of the Internet—the world's fastest growing method of communicating—could to a certain degree solve some of the problems in third world education.
In South Africa the increased provision of electricity and basic services, such as water, to most of the rural areas has given a major boost to improving access to education. One of Nelson Mandela's first initiatives when he came to power was to provide one meal for all school children in South Africa. At the time it seemed an easy task, but the problem facing many school teachers was what that meal should be. Eventually there was a joint initiative of the government and business to provide the distribution, as well as the basic needs, of one meal a day. That has had a huge effect in promoting education for many of the young in South Africa. It has been shown that without a basic meal, breakfast, many children have problems concentrating.
There is much other positive news in South Africa. South Africa supplies two thirds of Africa's electricity and is one of the cheapest electricity suppliers in the world. In 1999 Eskom, the major government electricity supplier, provided over 1.7 million homes in the country with electricity. The South African Government have, among their eight core education

1555
initiatives, pledged to improve the professional quality of teachers and to promote schools as the centre of community life. Just as important, they are focusing more and more resources on the provision of higher education. This approach to higher education has been endorsed by the World Bank and UNESCO, which are now calling for more focus on advanced education for developing countries challenged by hunger, persistent poverty, environmental degradation and economic under-performance.
In the short time that I have left, I wish briefly to touch on how the Internet could help education in the developing world. I should declare an interest, as managing director of an Internet infrastructure company. Schools in the developing world, without textbooks and well qualified teachers, can now access educational websites and lessons with long-distance teachers. The Internet already reaches almost every country in the world, and by 2001 the number of Internet web users in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean and eastern and central Europe will have nearly quadrupled, from 7.6 million to 25 million.
In conclusion, I wish to say that, in order to tackle the education crisis in the developing world, it is not just a matter of coming up with £5 billion a year, which is what it would cost to put every child through primary school. It is a matter of refocusing the approach to higher education and of pressuring all developing countries to allow girls the same access to education as boys. The Guardian on 31st January this year said:
"Education in the developing world is neither a luxury nor a privilege; it is a fundamental right".
3.43 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I also wish to start by thanking my noble friend Lady Whitaker for initiating this very important debate. Its importance is illustrated for me by two quotations. First, I quote also from Kofi Annan, who in 1998 said:
"education is a human right. On it rests the cornerstones of freedom and democracy … there is no higher priority, no mission more important than that of education for all".
I then wish to quote an unknown Ugandan woman who said:
"An educated person will have new opportunities. My daughter's life will be better if she can read and write".
It is on her daughter's life that I wish to concentrate.
Despite progress, there are still wide gaps in enrolment between girls and boys, as has already been said. The reasons are many and complex. The high economic and social benefits gained by the fact that girls are educated are substantial. It results in women having fewer children and healthier families. A study of 45 developing countries, as has been said, also found that the average mortality rate for children under five was 144 per thousand live births where the mothers had no education, dropping to 68 per thousand when they had attended school. There can be no better example of the value of education for girls. But education also leads to a reduction in health costs,
1556
brings about greater social cohesion and is the most valuable development intervention a country can make.
The year 2005 was the target for eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary education set by the Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995. That conference identified education as the single most important key to development and poverty alleviation. Poverty has a woman's face, 70 per cent of the world's poor being female. The education of girls is therefore critical. Beijing recognised for the first time that in order to promote full equality between women and men in all spheres of life the causes as well as the consequences of inequality had to be addressed, the major cause being the lack of access to education.
So what is the reality? Seventy five per cent of children are enrolled in primary schools but, as my noble friend said, more than 130 million children do not attend primary school at all, 73 million of them being girls. Unfortunately, instead of closing, the gender gap is widening.
In Ethiopia, which has one of the lowest rates of enrolment in the world, a third of six to 11 year-old boys attend school, but only one tenth of girls are enrolled. In 16 countries in sub-Saharan Africa an extra 2 million children will join the ranks of those not at school. The majority of them, I am sure, are girls. The proportion of girls in school fell by 10 per cent in Pakistan and by 8 per cent in Afghanistan.
But there has been progress. In Bangladesh the proportion of girls to boys attending primary school is now 49 per cent. Guinea has attempted to reduce the domestic burden on girls and has also made it illegal to force girls to marry before they have completed nine years at school. Malawi has eliminated school uniforms and therefore reduced costs. Mauritius, after 20 years of schooling, has sent women surging into the workforce.
I repeat that there are many reasons, both economic and cultural, why girls are denied their right to education. In West and Central Africa children as young as seven are trafficked within and across national borders to work as domestic workers or in some other form of manual labour. Ninety per cent of them are girls. Anti-Slavery International cites as examples that in parts of Nepal, Pakistan and India girls are forced to work 12 hours a day as bonded labourers in the fields, brick kilns and quarries, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Exclusion may also be because of the lack of separation of the sexes or the lack of female teachers. Educating a daughter might be perceived as a waste of time and money. Schooling is not always free, and sometimes girls are not seen as permanent members of the family as they will marry and move away. Some think that there is no value in educating a girl who will be unable to provide for her parents in later life; it has been said that educating a girl is like watering another man's garden.

1557
But education is not just about access and enrolment; it is about quality and content. All too often there is a shortage of books; there are teachers who are badly trained or poorly motivated and who discriminate; there are classes with over 100 pupils and inflexible school schedules and hours; there are language barriers; and there are schools with no access to clean water and often without toilets. This dismal quality means that many attend school but learn little. There are 150 million children, mostly girls, who drop out of school before acquiring basic literacy skills.
That is tragic because education is affordable. Primary education for everyone for 10 years in all the developing regions would cost only an additional 7 billion to 8 billion dollars each year. That is about four days' worth of global military spending and, it is understood, less than Europeans spend each year on mineral water.
The Secretary of State is to be praised for her promotion of joint programmes, for promoting schemes to write off billions of pounds of third world debt and for helping to secure international agreements on swapping debt relief for action on poverty. Development goes into reverse when poor countries spend more on paying their debts than on educating their children.
Millions of children will continue to be denied the right to education without a global financial strategy incorporating detailed action plans to get children into schools and ensuring that none of those plans fails through lack of money. But, ultimately, progress towards education for all depends on national governments. They must have the political will. There must be a commitment within their overall development plans to secure universal primary education and to work to a focused agreed strategy which removes gender inequalities, educates girls and empowers women.
I have had time to refer only to primary education. But, equally, there must be literacy programmes for those women and girls who have never been to school or who have learnt little. Primary education for girls in the developing countries is the one chance for them to acquire basic literacy, numeracy and essential life skills. It is not an option; it is a necessity.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Whitaker for introducing the subject for our debate today, and the more so for the cogency and urgency with which she has demonstrated its importance.
Education in developing countries is a fundamental ingredient of any strategy to break the cycle of world poverty. At the world conference, Education for All, a decade ago the commitment of the world was high. The promises of a full decade ago included:
"Universal access to good quality primary education".
The promise also foresaw that within the last decade of the 20th century the world's children would be provided with an opportunity "to develop their full capacities". I ask your Lordships to note that word "capacities" because I wish to return to that shortly.
1558
However, the performance has not been matched by the promise and as we examine the achievements of the last 10 years of the 20th century the statistics, which were so kindly provided to us by Oxfam in a very useful brief, are a frightening condemnation of our collective incapacities: 125 million primary school-age children not in school; a further 150 million children are starting primary school and not completing four years' education; one in four adults in the developing world is unable to write.
The statistics are bad but the trends are worse. I readily pay tribute to the work of my right honourable friend Clare Short and her strategic approach to poverty reduction and, it is hoped, eventual elimination. But yet again the global community has shown itself to be strong on promise and woefully short on performance.
Education is not just a necessary input to personal development; it is an imperative ingredient of economic growth, of sustaining democracy, of enhancing equity. It is the very basis of empowerment within the international community.
As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said,
"There is no more noble cause than education of quality for all".
It is against that background that I want to return to the word I mentioned earlier—"capacities". Throughout the world, in a range of international fora, the current buzz phrase is "capacity building". The United Nations and its specialised agencies want capacity building. If one looks at the European Union and its relationships with the ACP—the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries—with which we negotiate the Lomé agreement, again capacity building is part of the order of the day. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank support capacity building. The World Trade Organisation, in its post-Seattle analysis of the problems of how to deal with the interests of the least developing countries, also focused on capacity building.
But in my opinion demands now for capacity building are the empirical evidence of the past failures of past strategies to provide education in developing countries or of the world's failure to provide such education to the extent that it promised. Demands for capacity building today are the broken pledges of the past returning to mock us.
Globalisation has brought ever greater pressures on rich and poor countries alike to internationalise the resolution of their joint problems. But in the international fora there is a great and growing inequality in the capacity of individual nation states equally to defend their essential interests.
Therefore, in this short debate I draw two conclusions. I believe that we must clearly recommit ourselves and work within the international community to honour the pledge of universal access to quality education. We must make sure that next month's conference produces promise which has more meaning than those which were produced in Thailand a decade ago.

1559
Secondly, we must seek to equalise more urgently than can be provided by universal education the role of developing countries in the international arena. Capacity building cannot wait for a whole generation to be educated. That would be to continue internationally to institutionalise the inequalities which exist to an unacceptable degree.
Therefore, in the meanwhile, governments, the European Union, the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations and its agencies, and the WTO must all accept responsibility for putting on to their agenda the need urgently to address the problem of capacity building so that the failures for which we have in the past been responsible do not continue to the detriment of third world countries.
Unless we do that, I believe that we shall return again to this subject in a decade's time; we shall be expressing exactly the same regrets; we shall be discussing exactly the same problems. The only thing which will have changed is that in a decade the international expression of the inequalities will have become worse.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for making it possible for us to participate in this debate. It is extremely timely. The world's attention is focused on some massive tragedies on the African continent. The flood and cyclone ripping apart communities in Mozambique and Madagascar are still fresh in our minds. The tragedies of Rwanda and Burundi highlight conflicts which have torn communities part. The unsettled situation in many parts of the continent is still a matter of grave concern. Despite all that, there are key issues which need to be addressed. Those are the elimination of hunger and poverty, political stability, and, above all, education.
I was born in Tanzania, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I went to primary school there. It left a lasting impression on me. To a great extent, it has a stable government for which much credit must go to the father of the nation—Julius Nyerere. In any debate on Africa, we should never forget his contribution. With his death, we lost a statesman who did much to inspire the African nation.
We take many things for granted. It is easy to forget that countries in the third world do not have the resources to develop themselves. It is easy also to isolate ourselves from the tragedies faced by those countries. Many of their governments become irrelevant when faced with massive problems confronting the local population. But we cannot close our eyes to what goes on. Environment, health and education issues operate beyond national boundaries. What happens in other parts of the world affects us here too.
I left the small town of Tabora, in Tanzania, years ago. But many of that town still meet annually to raise funds for charities there. The High Commissioner, His
1560
Excellency Dr Shareef, plays an important role in ensuring that we support educational projects in the country of our birth.
Over the past few years, Taborians have sent money so that village schools have books and desks for the children. That is just a small example of how it is possible for all of us to make our contribution. But we should not under-estimate the role played by DfID in promoting development and the reduction of poverty. We are often critical of our own efforts but, having been involved in a number of charities and, in particular, as a trustee of the Save the Children Fund, I congratulate DfID on its commitment to the internationally agreed target of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by the year 2015. The target includes basic healthcare provision and universal access to primary education by the same date. That is a remarkable target. Let us pray it is achieved.
During a number of visits abroad, I have been impressed by the way in which Britain has contributed to the underdeveloped world. Of course, resources are never enough and more needs to be done. But despite progress with economic structures and political reform, Tanzania remains one of the poorest countries in the world. Fifty per cent of its people are below the locally defined poverty line. Educational indicators are worsening and health indicators are poor. Poverty is not restricted to rural areas; it is found in larger cities. The partnership between Britain and Tanzania is sound. I am encouraged that, if progress is maintained, Britain will deliver a substantial and increasing programme of bilateral development assistance, rising from £42 million to approximately £63 million over the next two years.
Education does not simply mean a qualification on a piece of paper. It must be much more than that. It means encouraging people to develop democracy as a core value. It means promoting a civic society which values the contribution of all its citizens. It means improved public resource and economic management. It means opportunities being available to all and, in particular, to the poor. Education must encompass programmes which improve knowledge and health status but also raise awareness of people's civil rights.
We read headlines about the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in this country, but we often forget that conflicts in Rwanda, Burundi and Congo have created massive shifts in population. Countries such as Tanzania bear the brunt of such upheavals. Tanzania has many challenges to face. Despite equal rights under the 1977 Tanzanian constitution, the status of women varies. That must concern us all. The public education service in Tanzania is in a state of unprecedented crisis. Primary school enrolment, which had reached 100 per cent in 1980, is now less than 60 per cent. A growing number of children are dropping out, disillusioned by the quality of teaching. That itself is the result of low morale among teachers due to poor training, lack of supervision, lack of basic teaching materials and low pay. Many children leave school without being able to read or write, and illiteracy is increasing. Secondary school enrolment, at

1561
7 per cent, is one of the lowest in Africa. State education, which used to be provided free of charge, is now subject to fees and contributions which put education beyond the reach of many children from poor families.
In the health service, the picture is also critical. The government are in the grip of tight cash budgeting. As in the education sector, structural problems mean that what money is available is not well spent. Food insecurity is a major issue in many parts of Tanzania. Many families live on or just below the poverty line. Although Tanzania has avoided involvement in the violent conflicts which have overtaken much of the Great Lakes region in the past decade, it is vulnerable to influxes of refugees and to other negative effects of regional instability. Those in turn have serious implications for Tanzania, in particular its food supply.
That picture may be repeated in other parts of Africa. Uganda and Congo, which border Tanzania, are no exception. We welcome what DfID is doing, hut, equally, we should not forget the role of charities. Despite all the changes taking place in Africa, effective work is still being undertaken. I, for one, admire the work undertaken by the charity with which I am associated—the Save the Children Fund.
We need to mount attacks at every level to ensure that the emerging nations benefit from the core values which education can produce: human rights; transparency; the creation of a just and civil society; assisting with the building of infrastructure; and caring for the environment. DfID has set a good example. Clare Short has had many battles, but she has the determination to succeed. Her contribution and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, should not be underestimated.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Tomlinson mentioned globalisation. Globalisation tells us that work will go to the lowest labour cost country. So why is it that all our industry is not packing up and going to Madagascar or to Vietnam? Why is it that in textiles—surely a global industry—Italy remains the largest exporter of fabric after China? In her thoughtful opening speech, my noble friend Lady Whitaker put her finger on the answer: education; education in its broadest sense—not only primary education, but also technical education, skills training, and training for enterprise. Pure globalisation assumes that skills, learning and business development are available everywhere; manifestly they are not. That is why I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that education aid needs to be balanced.
If we are going to help people to lift themselves out of poverty, primary education is not enough. They need work-related skills that lead to employment—and employment needs economic development. That means that however universal the technology, a lack of skills and literacy is a drag on the economy. Do not believe that that can be compensated for by the microprocessor. It is a common feature of less
1562
developed countries that frequency and voltage variations in the electricity supply cause microprocessors either not to function at all or to function incorrectly. Any engineer who has installed equipment in a less developed country will tell you about those problems.
To give credit where it is due, I must congratulate the Minister on the fact that her department has recognised the need for skills training. The Government have helped in two ways. They support the Commonwealth of Learning which provides skills training for countries within the Commonwealth. The Minister's department recently announced the Skills for Development initiative, which is full of good ideas, but they need to be put into practice.
However, that is not enough. To progress in our modern globalised world, developing countries need to establish an environment where there is a use for training skills. Job creation and the generation of wealth are as important there as they are here. Consequently, it is not enough to teach the soft skills of management, such as accountancy and engineering drawing. We need also to teach the much tougher and more difficult skills such as how to manage a sea port or run an electricity supply.
My right honourable friend Clare Short is today calling on pension funds to invest more in developing countries. She herself can encourage that process by channelling aid, not only into education and training, but also into establishing an economic infrastructure that encourages business. There is nothing mysterious in all that. The Government are doing much the same thing here. What is right for us is right for the developing countries.
But there is a catch to all this. There is another side that I should like to explore. There seems to be a kind of reverse brain drain from developing countries to the developed world, of which we are the beneficiaries. For example, only last weekend an item in the press stated that Germany will waive its strict immigration controls to allow 10,000 non-European Union computer and high-tech experts to enter the country this year. Headhunters are reportedly already at work in Asia offering salaries 10 times that which such experts can earn locally. There was also an item of news about how the NHS is anxious to recruit more heart surgeons outside Europe to improve our coronary services. I am told that India has become the world's largest exporter of doctors. There are possibly more Indian doctors outside India than inside.
If we think about that for a moment, it is possible that those technicians and doctors were recipients of the very aid we are debating today. Could we be creaming off some of the best educated for our own benefit? The Overseas Employment Corporation of Pakistan says that 36,000 doctors, engineers and teachers have migrated to other countries in the past 20 years. But that figure represents only a small proportion because the majority do not register. My point is that that emigration transfers the benefit of education aid from the developing world to the developed world.

1563
Should there be some form of compensation for that? Should developed countries pay back the original cost of the immigrant's training? Should that be in the form of a tax or import duty levied and then returned to the developing country to compensate not only for the immigrant's training but also for holding back the development of the immigrant's nation?
I doubt whether that kind of levy and repayment would be practical. To arrive at a figure, one would have to cross a minefield of sensitivities. However, much more thought must be given to this reverse brain drain. It needs to be studied. It could be a significant cause of holding back development. It demonstrates how aid to the less developed countries brings extra benefits to the developed countries. Unless that is recognised, the full benefit of educational aid which we are discussing today will not be reaped by the less developed countries. Some of it will be harvested by us in the developed world.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Brett: My Lords, in view of the time constraints, I shall restrict my contribution to this important debate to one aspect only. I refer to the role of the international financial institutions—namely, the IMF and the World Bank—and the impact of their structural adjustment policies on the education programmes of the developing world. I start by saying that I do not believe that their role has been distinguished to date.
That was most vividly brought home to me when in 1996 the International Labour Organisation, of which I have the privilege of being vice-chairman, sponsored a tripartite conference on the impact of structural adjustment programmes on educational personnel. At that meeting I heard a litany of the impact of such policies from educational organisations and trade unions across the world. They included reductions in the numbers of teachers; closure of teacher training colleges; compulsory retirement of teachers; reduction in teaching qualifications; massive reductions in the numbers of non-teaching support staff; and wage freezes lasting in many cases for a number of years, almost always imposed without the prior consultation of any of those directly involved in education, be it the ministry of education, the teachers' organisations or civil society in general.
To obtain a measure of the impact, one should note that in Africa, 46 of the 51 countries of that continent are or have been under structural adjustment policies. Three-quarters of the sub-Saharan countries have cut public expenditure on education. That is in a region with 47 million children not in schooling.
The recent story in east Asia is little different. The Oxfam publication IMF-Wrong Diagnosis, Wrong Medicine is an excellent report which reflects my own experience with those two organisations. The document states that in east Asia the medicine from the IMF led to,
"A dramatic increase in poverty and deterioration in education indicators".
1564
The wrong medicine had considerable impact. It resulted in 1.3 million children dropping out of school in Indonesia; and a 300 per cent increase, to almost 700,000, in children not attending school in Thailand. The story in Latin America is no different. A similar story can be shown from the impact of IMF policies in Mexico or the 25 per cent decline in early childhood education programmes in Brazil. There is a sorry story wherever we go: IMF structural adjustment programmes equal cuts in health and education. That is mainly because those are the major areas of public expenditure, outside defence, in many developing countries.
The record of the World Bank is not as bad, although even there I do not believe there is a great deal to shout about. It too is held in thrall by the neo-liberal economists who believe that private equals good and public equals bad. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will tell me that attitudes are changing in both the Fund and the Bank and that the lessons of the Asian crisis mean that the IFIs recognise the need to be more sensitive to the impacts of their decisions and the social policy adjustments that need to be made. I suspect the Minister may be positive to the proposals that the IFIs will protect expenditure on health and education. If so, she would be correct. Indeed, in no small measure it is due to the splendid efforts of her colleague, the Secretary of State for International Development, that those proposals are coming about.
To that end, she may extol the commitment of the director of the World Bank, Jim Wolfensohn, and the outgoing head of the IMF, Michel Camdessus. All that is fine. I have discussed the issues with both Jim Wolfensohn and Michel Camdessus and their sincerity is not in question. Therefore, what is the problem? The answer is to be found at the coal-face, the chalk-face or whatever nomenclature we want to use for economists working in the depths of the IMF and the World Bank. They are neo-liberal economists to a man—I say that because most of them are men. They draw up the policy framework plans and remain faithful to their neo-liberal training and the now discredited "Washington consensus". They continue in their own arrogant way to prescribe that one policy fits all, usually without consultation with those directly involved in education in the countries concerned.
I have two anecdotes which cover those points. The first concerns consultation. I and others complained to the Bank and the Fund at the lack of any consultation. The message was received and led to an official, on arrival in Ghana, telephoning the head of the Ghana Trades Union Congress. He said, "We really need to consult with you. How about 2.30 this afternoon?" That is not real consultation on a structural adjustment programme, in anybody's terms.
The other anecdote is even more disturbing. Shortly after the last general election, I spoke to an official at the World Bank about changes in policy and the ILO's declaration of fundamental rights to work, which had already been accepted by the head of the Bank, Mr Wolfensohn and, indeed, by Mr Camdessus. The official explained that there would not necessarily be

1565
any real change for a considerable period because people had been working with previous policies for two decades and it would take them time to adjust to any change of policy at the head of the organisation. I pointed out that any Permanent Secretary in this country greeting an incoming minister with the revelation that policies could not be changed for several years because civil servants had worked for a previous administration would not be a Permanent Secretary for long.
That kind of arrogance, I fear, operates both within the Bank and the Fund. My appeal to the Minister and the Government is for them to show the same determination to ensure that the Bank, the Fund and the regional development banks really protect education and health rather than simply pay lip service to that end. They should do so in collaboration with those directly involved at country level in education ministries, teacher trade unions and parent organisations.
The Government have shown great determination at international level to ensure that those issues are on the agenda. They deserve to be congratulated on changing policy in the Fund and the Bank. However, unless they show the same determination to feed that policy down to working level, I fear we shall still be looking for change in years to come. I am grateful for the work of the Ministers and civil servants within DOD. That policy commitment needs to be translated to the officials at the Bank and the Fund.
4.19 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in warmly congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on introducing this debate, which highlights one of the most important aspects of the needs of developing countries.
As the noble Baroness and others have already emphasised, education is essential for development: for economic development, without which no society can prosper; for the development of civil society and democracy; and for the development of individual citizens to enable them to develop their personal potential and to make effective contributions to their societies. Lack of education too often brings unemployability and a downward spiral of poverty, frustration, alienation and pressures to resort to desperate measures for survival, such as crime, drug trafficking or even selling children into prostitution. By contrast, education can bring personal fulfilment, employability, financial independence, the ability to take care of one's family, and personal dignity.
In many places, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, has already highlighted, there is an especially urgent need to provide education for women to enable them to develop some economic self-sufficiency, personal independence and the ability to make their contribution to civil society.
In a radio interview on Commonwealth Day, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth was speaking about aid. I did not hear the interview, but I am told that he made reference to the fact that, too
1566
often in the past, aid resources intended to promote essential services such as education and healthcare had disappeared into the pockets of local elites, never reaching those for whom they were given. I understand that he gave the welcome commitment that, if developing countries are to be relieved of the burden of debt repayment, which many of us hope will be the case, they will be required to specify measures to guarantee that aid given for education or healthcare will be used for those purposes. Can the Minister therefore please indicate what measures will be put in place to ensure strict accountability by countries receiving aid, so that it really is used to maximum effect?
This highlights the main issues on which I wish to focus: accountability and appropriateness. But before I introduce a negative note and refer to a problem, perhaps I may express my appreciation of so much good work that is being undertaken in many developing countries. We have already heard about many examples of such good work. However, because education is so important and because resources are finite while needs are almost infinite, it is essential to ensure that educational aid is both appropriate and that it is used and provided appropriately.
Perhaps the best way to illustrate this issue is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brett, and to give an anecdote. I hope that the House will forgive me for recounting a personal story. I was in southern Sudan in an area designated by the government of Sudan as a "no go" region for the United Nations and other aid agencies. In Christian Solidarity Worldwide, we focus on such "no go" areas. Our small aeroplane dropped us off on a forbidden airstrip. We were walking through the bush when we nearly stumbled over a man dying of starvation. I gave him a drink of rehydration salts to ease his discomfort. I will never forget his gracious smile. In the morning, he was dead. A few yards further on, a young woman was dying under a thorn tree.
After we had pitched our tents, we walked through ghost villages where the survivors were living skeletons. While walking to one of these villages, we saw a little boy standing by the path. He was aged about five, naked, with a pot belly as a result of malnutrition or worms, or both. He spoke to us in English. I stopped in amazement and said, "You speak English?". With a cherubic smile, he replied very proudly, "Yes, I go to school". School was a patch of sand under a mango tree and the children were learning to read and write with sticks in the sand.
Later that day, to my surprise, I discovered a large mound of neatly stacked boxes from a humanitarian organisation which I will not name. They obviously contained aid. Feeling delighted to think that these people had received some essential supplies, I went to investigate. I then discovered why the boxes were still intact. They contained several tonnes of blackboard chalk. Try to imagine the cruelty of this: there, in the midst of people dying from starvation and disease, some aid organisation with an educational remit had delivered chalk without even supplying a blackboard. Imagine the hopes raised when the aid aeroplane had

1567
landed on that remote airstrip and people thought that there would be lifesaving medicines, food or clothes. Then imagine the crushing disappointment when all that was unloaded was box after box of blackboard chalk. When the rainy season comes and the cardboard disintegrates, that chalk will be a whited sepulchre to the inappropriateness of some Western aid.
I am not making an unwarranted generalisation from an isolated example. During the course of our work in remote areas, we have come across too many examples of inappropriate aid being sent as a result of lack of accountability and sensitivity on the part of certain donor organisations. Time does not permit me to cite those examples and I have no wish to do so, because I do not want to detract from much good work that is being done. But there is a need for measures to guarantee accountability for aid, to check that it reaches those for whom it is intended, and to ensure that it is appropriate to their situation. Inappropriate aid can be as cruel as corruption.
However, I shall finish on a positive note, with a tribute to the dignity of many people in these dire situations and to their appreciation of the help they do receive. One day, "footing" through the bush in Sudan, we stopped at a village to meet the local people. Sitting under a tree after having exchanged courtesies, the local elders asked if they could offer a word of criticism about Britain's role in the history of Sudan. Of course I agreed, emphasising that I had come to listen and to learn. I expected a rebuke on Britain's role in colonialism; instead, they told me that they regretted the fact that, "Britain left too soon". Then, with characteristic Sudanese graciousness, they quickly added—lest I should be offended—"But we will always be grateful to the British. You gave us education and that is the most important gift. Education gives the freedom to think and that is the most important freedom of all".
Such is the dignity of those Sudanese people, suffering and dying in a bitter war, and such is the dignity of many others we meet in similar dire circumstances in other countries. They cherish education as the most important gift we can help them to attain. For that reason, I hope that this debate will help to ensure that many more people in developing countries will be enabled to attain the realisation of their personal and national potential, which only education can give.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, like many other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for initiating this debate, not only because it gives us an opportunity to discuss generally government responsibilities, both domestically and internationally, but also because it gives us an opportunity to pay tribute to the positive role played by NGOs in the field of education in the developing world.
1568
Perhaps I may first declare my interest as a founder member and trustee of One World Action. For some considerable time, One World Action has been engaged in educational projects with its partners in a number of developing countries. Like other speakers, time does not allow me to tell noble Lords of the many and varied educational projects in which One World Action has been, and continues to be, involved. They range from teaching skills and literacy in Namibia to citizenship training for women in Bangladesh, to adult education in Mozambique. Unfortunately, this afternoon I shall be able to refer only to a major partnership project undertaken by One World Action in recent years in South Africa.
Today, millions of women, men and children in South Africa still experience severe poverty and marginalisation. Life in the townships is gradually improving as new houses are built and basic services are improved. However, for those living in the remote rural areas, life is still very grim. Poverty there is caused by a lack of any employment opportunities and an almost complete absence of the most basic services such as water, transport and housing. Healthcare and education are also extremely poor. Women make up the majority of the population in rural areas because men migrate to the towns and cities in search of work and return to the rural areas only infrequently, if at all.
The Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA), one of One World Action's partners in South Africa, is working with local community-based women's organisations in the poor rural areas of Northern Province to improve the political, social and economic situation of these women. It is running workshops in consultation with poor and excluded women from the rural areas to enable them to become more active in local government. One World Action funds this very important work.
The IDASA also works with local community-based and women's organisations to gather information, using that data as a kind of social audit on the basic service needs of women. It organises consultations with local groups and government representatives. Workshops are then set up to discuss the results of the information-gathering exercise. The consultations and workshops ensure that the basic service needs of rural women are better understood by local and national government. The women are able to express their views and opinions directly to local policy-makers and to demand the kind of services they want. As a result of those educational opportunities, women's access to these services are vastly improved.
One World Action has been working with the IDASA for a number of years and has played a part in the development of its local government programme, LOGIC. The aim of the project is to enhance democratic governance and improve service delivery at a local level. The IDASA and One World Action are working together to promote and consolidate democracy and a culture of tolerance by designing and facilitating processes and programmes that transform institutions and empower individuals and communities as the basis for sustainable development. One World Action takes the view that empowerment

1569
of women is a vital and essential element in building democracy, not just in South Africa, but in all its work with partners in the developing world.
I am aware that our Government are determined to assist the developing world wherever and whenever they can. Those noble Lords who heard my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, speak yesterday afternoon at an all-party meeting could not fail to have been impressed by her breadth of knowledge and her understanding of the many and difficult problems that the international community is facing.
The long-term needs of the developing world—graphically illustrated recently—are made that much more difficult by natural disasters in so many areas of need. It was encouraging for me, and I am sure for others, to hear from the Secretary of State how our Government are taking a leading role in a number of international institutions, such as those referred to by my noble friend Lord Brett (who I know has battled long and hard to bring down some of the barriers that exist), to address the vexed questions of debt relief and the proper co-ordination of international aid.
Party politics aside, all Members of this House can rightly be proud that we have such an able and committed advocate on behalf of the poor and excluded people who share this one world with us. It is our responsibility to share the world's knowledge and resources with those who, by accident of birth, do not have in their whole lifetime that which many of us sometimes take for granted in one day of our own lives.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Whitaker introduced this challenging debate. I must declare an interest as I work as a consultant in the areas of education and health for the UK Department for International Development.
Many issues have been raised, so I shall concentrate mainly on the impact of education for girls and women on population and reproductive health. I must express my thanks to Population Concern, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation for supplying information.
As my noble friend Lady Gould said, there is strong international evidence that educating girls raises economic productivity and lowers infant mortality and fertility rates. It is the key to reducing poverty and to improving quality of life. Children's success, health and productivity depend to a great extent on their mother's health, education, skills and welfare.
The World Bank estimated that each year of schooling a girl receives reduces the under-five mortality rate considerably, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, mentioned. Women who are better educated have more grasp of issues of health, sanitation and nutrition; they are more likely to use contraception; more likely to defer child-bearing; have
1570
fewer children, and pass on education to the next generation. They are less likely to be burdened by the debilitating impact of frequent pregnancy.
A woman with four years of secondary education tends to have two fewer children than a woman who has not. A World Bank study suggests that doubling female secondary enrolment could reduce the number of births, by choice, by almost 30 per cent in 10 years. The spacing of child-bearing helps to improve women's education and status. If a woman marries early or has pregnancies during adolescence, she is more likely to be unable to continue her education. Women who have repeated pregnancies find it more difficult to work outside the home or to keep a job. The spacing of children gives women more options. Education facilitates both the spacing and the options.
The average family size and child death rates are lowest in countries such as South Korea which combines strong family planning and health programmes with high levels of education for women. Family size and child death rates are highest in those countries where there is low female education, and poor family planning and child health programmes; for example, in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa. There are exceptions to those trends, such as in Bangladesh and Indonesia, where the converse is true for complex reasons. But generally, the correlation between education for girls, low fertility rates and better child health seems indisputable.
The United Nations Population Division's latest projection for global population in the year 2050 is 8.9 billion, which is lower than the 1996 projection of 9.4 billion. The major reason for that is the decline in fertility rates, although about one-third of the reduction in the projection is due to increasing mortality in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of India, caused by HIV and AIDS which have devastated families and economies.
Our strongest response to AIDS has been, and will remain for the foreseeable future, in sexual health education and awareness for men and women. Men too, of course, have the right to receive information and education about reproductive health, partly to support and encourage women's choices, but also because they need to take action against sexually transmitted infections for their own protection.
Gender relations between men and women in societies have been shown to influence contraceptive usage, child spacing and women's contribution to the economy. Opportunities for women may be seriously affected by gender inequality; and gender inequality is the responsibility of men as well as women, perhaps more so. Education can support gender equality.
Strategies suggested by development experts for improving the education of girls include a number of strands, such as structuring timetables (as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner) to suit the need for help at home; giving scholarships to girls and convincing families that education for girls is important. One consistent strand is the need for education in sexual and reproductive health, combined with appropriate services.

1571
Since the conferences on population and development in Cairo and Beijing, there have been efforts by some governments, non-governmental organisations and the World Bank to increase educational opportunities for girls. The Beijing declaration included a commitment,
"to protect and promote the rights of adolescents to sexual and reproductive health information and services".
Adolescent girls, 83 per cent of whom live in developing countries, may be subjected to violence, trafficking and abuse as well as too-early pregnancy, anaemia, genital mutilation, unsafe abortion, and infections of the reproductive tract. Reproductive health education can be provided in families, schools, communities, clubs, places of employment and other places where girls might gather. This education can involve girls as peer educators and councillors. Unfortunately, many countries are reluctant to encourage sexual health education and information even in the face of problems such as HIV and AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections.
In sub-Saharan Africa, the actual numbers of girls enrolling in education have gone down and in parts of Asia there is a growing imbalance of girls and boys due to sex-selected abortion, infanticide and neglect. In India, for example, the girl mortality rate in the nought to four age group is 43 per cent higher than for boys; and young women in the 15 to 19 age group have higher death rates relating to pregnancy and childbirth. Again, the support needed from education programmes is clear.
Girls' and women's rights to education, health and reproductive choices are improving in many societies. But there remains much to be done by international and local communities to make those rights a reality, and vigilance is needed if they are to be improved. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I must declare an interest as chair of Oxfam, which has education in developing countries at the top of its agenda, which I personally believe is exactly where it should be.
Perhaps I may join other noble Lords in expressing my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for introducing this most important and timely debate. It is important because we live in a world which could provide good quality basic education for every single child, but which is failing miserably to do so. The debate is timely because, in just six weeks' time, in the last week of April, the World Education Forum will take place in Dakar in Senegal. If this moment is seized, there is the opportunity to launch a concrete programme to deliver on the internationally agreed target of providing all the world's children with access to good quality basic education by the year 2015.
The critical importance of education is that it is the key that unlocks the attainment of all development targets. In fact, none of the 2015 human development targets—whether to halve the proportion of people
1572
living in extreme poverty or to reduce child death rates by two-thirds—will be met without also meeting the education targets.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and other noble Lords, have given many examples of the scandal and the effects of 130 million children in the developing world being deprived of access to education. I shall not add to those examples, although I do have a fair number of very persuasive ones. In summary, over 130 million young children are not in primary school; many of those in it drop out; and many of those who remain are taught by poorly-trained teachers in classrooms that often lack a blackboard, chalk, chairs or desks.
So what is to be done about it? The starting point is to recognise that we live in a world in which eliminating global poverty is actually feasible. In 1997, the Secretary of State for International Development pointed out in her department's excellent White Paper, Eliminating Global Poverty, that ours is the first generation in the entire course of human history for whom eradicating poverty is a realistic aim. This is an astonishing opportunity; but it will not happen without education.
I should like to take this opportunity to express my admiration for the work that the Department for International Development has undertaken in this field under the leadership of the right honourable Clare Short and the noble Baroness, Lady Amos.
I move from the United Kingdom to the international scene. It is time to live up to international agreements, notably the promises made at the World Conference on Education for All in Jomtien in March 10 years ago. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said that it is time to launch a campaign in parallel with the remarkably successful one that has been launched in relation to debt relief. I am pleased to say that Oxfam International has taken the lead in developing a Global Action Plan for basic education for all. That plan has won widespread support from, among others, the World Bank, the UN Development Programme, and UNICEF. The plan is backed by national coalitions of civil society organisations in many developing countries.
The Global Action Plan argues that the tragedy of mass exclusion from basic education is avoidable and that it could be ended through a sustained, joint effort and practical action between developed and developing countries. It calls for a strategic framework for delivering on commitments, and the political will to match resources with needs. The plan calls for about 8 billion dollars to be invested each year, over and above existing expenditure, to achieve the 2015 targets. That sound like an awful lot of money. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, pointed out, 8 billion dollars is just four days-worth of global military spending. If one pauses over that, one realises that it says something about the priorities of the world community that four days' military spending could actually provide education for 130 million children who desperately need it.

1573
The key to the Global Action Plan—both in raising the money and in planning and delivery—is the involvement of governments, the public, and civil society in developing countries. Developing country governments could raise half of the amount were they to do such things as reallocate education budgets more towards basic education and redistribute wasteful public spending, including excessive military spending. In turn, the international community could mobilise the remaining £4 billion through an increase in aid and through reallocating aid towards basic education.
Much money could also 'come from debt relief. The 10 billion dollars in debt servicing that sub-Saharan Africa has paid each year exceeds what the region spends on basic education. The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative has the potential to generate significant resource flows from over 30 poor countries. Indeed, under the reformed HIPC Initiative—reformed, I would say, very much through the efforts of our Chancellor of the Exchequer—eligibility for debt relief will be contingent on countries demonstrating a commitment to poverty eradication, including a commitment to basic education.
We are already seeing the effects of debt relief in Uganda. There, the government have moved vigorously to provide universal primary education. All of the budget savings from debt relief, amounting to around 40 million dollars a year, have been allocated to a Poverty Action Fund, which includes resources for education. Over the past two years, the number of children attending primary school in Uganda has doubled. The Dakar conference could be the next major step forward in delivering such a Global Action Plan. However, it has to come up with real plans, real money and real momentum—not more high-falutin declarations of intent and statements of principle.
I believe that the UK Government and the Prime Minister are in a unique position to drive forward the goal of education for all. The Government, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development, have, rightfully, won plaudits for taking the lead over international debt, using their influence to secure agreement and funding for a more generous package of debt relief. If the Prime Minister at this 11th hour before Dakar champions the cause of universal primary education in the same way, he could make all the difference. He has already taken a strong lead on domestic education; were he to project this into the international arena, it would send a powerful signal to the rest of the world that the global education crisis really can be tackled now.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I, too, should like' to add my thanks to those already expressed to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. I should also like to join my noble friend Lady Gould and others in paying tribute to the work of the Secretary of State for International Development, who is personally driving and delivering so much in her department. I should also like to pay tribute to my
1574
noble friend Lady Amos. They have demonstrated that, when the old ways have failed, we have a responsibility to provide new and innovative ways in the way that this country works with the developing world to create real change. But how are we to find new ways to improve the outcomes of the assistance that we give to the poorer developing countries? Here our central object and central goal must be effective outcomes.
I wish the Secretary of State well at the Education for All Global Forum in Dakar on 11th April; and at the meeting of the Commonwealth Education Ministers in Nova Scotia, when their attention will be drawn to how they look at education in the global era and what it means for the Commonwealth countries, especially the small Caribbean states. I look forward to real progress in this area.
I should like to contribute to this debate by looking at how development donors, such as the British Government and other institutions—public, private, and voluntary bodies—could assist these nations in the Caribbean to equip their citizens with the skills to enjoy, and compete in, the global information revolution.
The Caribbean in particular is my reference point. The revolution in global information can be brought about in the developing nations of the Caribbean in a way that is significant. I should like to point out that, like every Member of your Lordships' House, I see the number one priority for education in the developing world as being to ensure universal primary education. I say this not only from the standpoint of one who believes that education is a basic human right but of one who knows that primary education is the absolute precondition for progress in development and reduction of poverty. It is to the hard facts of economics as well as human rights that I should like to look.
We in the Caribbean are fortunate to have a thirst for learning and, on the whole, Caribbean governments have put education among their top priorities and basic education has become a right in the small nation states. The greatest need at this time is for information technology. If these new nations are to compete in the global village, they must be helped to prepare themselves to expand their markets. The playing field is not even. The United Nations reports that 20 per cent of the world's population living in the richest countries account for 86 per cent of the total income of the world, while 20 per cent of the world's population living in the poorest countries account for a mere 1 per cent.
The question remains: how do they compete? We believe that knowledge is the key. Technological competence and knowledge enhancement through the Internet can assist so that these small nations can become more competitive. This country has the wherewithal to provide the equipment to facilitate such training.
Access to technology cannot be left to these small nation states alone. There is a need—a real need—for computers and I believe this Government can

1575
help.They can encourage institutions in this country to recycle or donate those computers they no longer need to be used in the schools of the Caribbean. Alternatively, the Internet and computer software industry—we know they are enjoying a boom at this time—could be encouraged to subsidise new equipment in schools. Not only would the pupils and schools benefit but I dare say these companies would be laying the foundations to establish their own future markets.
If this proves to be a sensible route to take, what we could usefully export in conjunction is the know-how and the skills to use the new technology. I should like to suggest the possibility of distance learning and, where possible, the use of technologies to expand access to skills training.
I understand that the Department for International Development has supported the Commonwealth of Learning, which provides training, institutional networking and expertise in distance course development for countries in the Commonwealth. Information technology now provides major new opportunities to increase access to these courses. For example, the Commonwealth of Learning has worked with the University for Technology in Jamaica and other countries to develop training up to the diploma stage for technical teachers based on open and distance learning. The result is that this course can be taken to the student and not the expensive alternative of taking the student to the institutions.
The information superhighway is becoming a crucial tool in education. Education is the key area for real and sustainable development for the new nations. I urge the Government, when considering how they deal with the heavy burden of third world debt, to consider recycling the repayments towards technological training so that developing countries like those in the Caribbean will not be left behind in the new age but will be equipped to compete equitably.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am the 15th speaker in this debate. Noble Lords have said a number of good things, one of which I shall repeat. I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for introducing this timely debate.
I agree with the fears expressed by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson and almost repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. However, I do not expect much will come of that. People make resolutions, set targets and so on, but these things go on at a supermacro level. We need to think of the third world not as victims but as active agents.
What are the reasons for failure? Here I take up something my noble friend Lord Haskel said. I of course deny that there is any such thing as a brain drain—I have to, do I not? What is true, even in the sphere of higher education, is that these countries can achieve a great deal. There is no problem. Many of these countries not only achieve good higher education but can export higher education.
1576
Why do they fail in primary education? Of course, as here and everywhere else, the middle classes capture a number of gains for themselves and like further education. Our students like further education—they complain a little about the higher education fees, but why should they not? The problem is not so much shortage of resources, although there is a shortage of resources, but allocation within the budget as to where the priorities are. Even admitting the strictures of my noble friend Lord Brett about structural adjustments, among those countries which had to undergo structural adjustment, some managed to save education better than others. We really ought to study the successful responses and strategies in those countries and not just write out a cheque because we believe that we have to do something.
One of the studies to come out of the London School of Economics Asian Research Centre has been about basic education in Pakistan; a similar story can be told about India. It is not so much that parents do not want primary education for their children, even for girls; it is actually that the supply of primary education is inadequate. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, made this point. There are schools but there are no teachers. The teachers are paid but they do not attend. This occurs because the teacher is appointed as a favour to a local Member of Parliament and is not under an obligation to attend. This is one of the perks that the MLA gets. In addition, the school buildings may be so inadequate that parents of girls do not want to send their children. For example, there may not be any toilets.
Something has happened in India. The devolution of power to the village level has meant that the villagers are themselves in charge of the school. They control the teacher and supervise whether the teacher attends. They are on hand to know whether a teacher attends. The key in this case is for the power to be at the top, not at the bottom, and the self-organisation of people whose fortunes are at stake. When people are organised, they want education for their own children and will move heaven and earth to achieve it. In urban areas, one observes very poor parents spending a great deal of money to send their children to good schools. It is not that parents do not want education for their children; it is that they feel helpless because of the structures that are in place.
There is a way in which we should deal with this matter. I am sure that the excellent work of my right honourable friend Clare Short at the Department for International Development is very much in this direction. We should be able to funnel the funds to local groups. They will then make possible the good delivery of education by responding to existing pressures.
In Mauritius I once gave my usual spiel on primary education, targets and so on, and I was heavily criticised. One man said to me that the whole issue of primary education was a conspiracy by Western countries to hold back developing countries. He said, "We do not just want primary education; we want higher education as well". We must not forget that. I agree that primary education is a human right and that

1577
women's education is crucial, but there is more to life than primary education. We must also understand that there is a great desire on the part of developing countries to catch up rapidly with advances in higher education. Some of the techniques to which noble Lords have referred—distance learning and so on—are useful. Many of our universities ought to be engaged—I know that some are engaged—in tackling long-distance learning in order to deal with the shortage of textbooks and other problems that currently exist in higher education in those poor countries.
That is all I want to say. I shall donate half a minute of my time to my noble friend the Minister.
5.1 P.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is to be congratulated on initiating this timely debate which coincides with the recent publication of the World Bank's task force report entitled Peril and Promise: Higher Education in Developing countries. I should like to focus on higher education, following the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth.
The report focuses attention on the particular role of higher education in developing countries. In surveying the situation, it shows starkly how lack of growth in the tertiary education sector threatens the future economic prospects of much of the developing world. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, remarked, the playing field is becoming increasingly less even. The picture, of course, is not uniform. For example, considerable progress has been and is being made in parts of south-east Asia. The greatest problems seem to be in much of Africa where for many countries the data sought by the World Bank's team were simply not available.
President Mkapa of Tanzania has expressed the fear that higher education in Africa is becoming increasingly obsolete, especially in the face of growing globalisation. The World Bank endorses this concern and points to some of the internally generated causes: quality is low and often deteriorating; access remains very limited; the better trained teachers and researchers emigrate for better pay and prospects; the physical, pedagogic and technological infrastructures are hopelessly inadequate; and added to those handicaps is the fact that,
"Higher education institutions (and even whole systems) are politicized, poorly regulated and sometimes corrupt".
The task force recommends that governments in the developing world should make it a national priority to debate higher education, to specify its contemporary role, and to determine what is expected from it as they move from agricultural and manufacturing-centred economies to becoming the knowledge-centred economies that now characterise the developed world, where the emphasis is on human capital rather than physical capital.
My noble friend Lord Thomson made the point that there needs to be a greater balance in the allocation of educational resources. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai,
1578
remarked, people need primary education as a basic human right—that is a prerequisite—but they also want higher education in order precisely to be able to compete in the globalised economy. While progress at the primary level is vital, higher education has tended to be neglected. That needs to be redressed.
As the report states, the main efforts to improve the quality and provision of higher education in the developing world must come from within the countries concerned, but there remains the question of how best to target international aid. The UK cannot and should not seek to be of assistance across the board and spread its resources too thinly. To be effective, it must be selective, even more perhaps that it already is. Distance learning must be further developed, and already the Open University, along with other British universities, has been a pioneering force in this area. The British Council, whose budget was significantly reduced by the previous government, needs again to be expanded in selected countries. Its offices should become major higher education resource centres, facilitating the delivery of British further and higher educational provision suitably adapted to local requirements.
In addition—my noble friend Lord Thomson referred to this point—the role of the Commonwealth should be even more prominent a feature in all of this. The older nations of the Commonwealth should be encouraged to offer more to the developing nations of the Commonwealth, especially to those in Africa. The UK established many of the major universities in east Africa, like Makere and Nairobi, and Ibadan and Fourah Bay in west Africa. They and others need our help to refurbish them both physically and intellectually. It is important to recognise that among international institutions the Commonwealth is one of the better organised and could provide the best vehicle for helping to address some of the many problems identified in the World Bank's report.
Finally, I should like to reiterate a point made by many other noble Lords. Not all worthwhile assistance has to be organised on a macro-scale. I wish to turn to schooling. Small endeavours, properly targeted, can also achieve results, as the work of CamFed—the Cambridge Female Education Trust—reveals. Working in sub-Saharan Africa since 1993, it has enabled hundreds of girls from rural backgrounds in Zimbabwe and Ghana to attend school by creating new forms of partnership with rural communities that transcend the constraints of poverty. With money from Comic Relief and the National Lottery, CamFed has been able to pay local school fees and provide school uniforms, books and stationery for many hundreds of girls.
Apart from liberating the girls themselves, this programme is having profound knock-on effects for national development, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, underlined. That leads to a considerable reduction in the number of young girls becoming mothers too soon. Many of these young women also go on to become "ambassadors" for the cause of

1579
female education, forming local associations which are beginning to raise educational funds for themselves both locally and internationally.
CamFed girls in Zimbabwe have now established nearly 80 new rural businesses using micro-credit schemes and are thus contributing to the rural economy rather than drifting into the towns in search of casual and often dangerous work.
In conclusion, perhaps I may add my appreciation to the commitment, dogged persistence and leadership shown by the Secretary of State, the right honourable Clare Short, at DfID, ably assisted by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as tail-end Charlie, I am quite surprised to find that I still have a few points to make. First, I should like to say how much I admire the way in which my noble friend Lady Whitaker has timed her debate to coincide with the global forum at Dakar. Perhaps I may draw attention to something that has not been mentioned by other noble Lords. I refer to the strategy document, which is hot off the press, from DfID. It is entitled Education for All—The Challenge of Universal Primary Education. That document is out for consultation. I hope that this debate will be regarded by DfID as part of the consultation process.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to Julius Nyerere, who was widely known as Mwalimu, or "wise one". He said in 1970,
"Education is not a way of escaping poverty it is a way of fighting it".
Therefore it should be—as it is—a central plank of DfID's strategy.
I wish to focus on the impact of basic education on health and community development but with a particular slant towards the problem of HIV and AIDS. As well as the other benefits mentioned by my noble friends Lady Massey and Lady Gould, a further result of the education of girls and the increased empowerment of women is that it may help them to resist the strong social pressure, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, to have early unprotected sex, usually with older men. This has led to the tragic situation in many sub-Saharan countries that the HIV infection rate is higher in women than in men and in a younger age group, with disastrous consequences for their children. HIV and AIDS have seriously set back the plans of many countries to expand education at all levels. Sadly, the incidence in some sub-Saharan countries appears to be highest in the section of the population from which teachers are recruited—the educated middle class. In Ivory Coast it has been estimated that one teacher dies from AIDS every day of the school year, and that is typical of many sub-Saharan countries.
DfID's consultation document states on page 24 that HIV,
"is reducing the numbers participating in education … Countries in Asia, the Pacific and Latin America are also at serious risk of repeating the African experience in perhaps just a decade".
1580
But, paradoxically, it is through education that there is the greatest chance of slowing down the spread of the epidemic. DfID's document further states on page 29,
"Primary education provides opportunities to educate and alert children to the potential danger before they are sexually active".
There are imaginative and appropriate educational materials available to assist with that. Here I put in a plug for the NGO Healthlink Worldwide of which I am a trustee. This organisation publishes newsletters and has links with partner organisations in the South to exchange accurate but effective health educational material to assist teachers and primary health workers. I am glad to say that its value is recognised by DfID which supports some of its activities. There is a great need for down-to-earth relevant information not only in preventing HIV/AIDS but across the board in general and reproductive health. Frank but sensitive discussion about relationships and sex should start before children reach the age where they become sexually active.
The Choices booklet by Gill Gordon, published by Macmillan Education Ltd, and also supported by DfID, distributed through the organisation known as TALC, Teaching Aids at Low Cost, is an example of the style that is needed. It is written for young people aged between 10 and 24, with an African setting in mind. It not only gives helpful advice on how to delay the start of sexual activity until the right time but also explicit information on contraception and avoiding sexually transmitted diseases and HIV and how sex can be enjoyed best as part of a loving relationship. It gives details of how that can be achieved too.
In closing, I draw attention to the article by Stephen Bates in yesterday's Guardian Education Supplement. It is called, in typical Guardian style, Educating Gita. It points out that not only are there still 130 million children in the world missing out on any form of education, but that the level of much existing education is abysmally low and a high proportion of children drop out before attaining any useful literacy. The article concentrates on India, but, sadly, the description of poor buildings, ill trained teachers, poor accessibility in rural areas and the irrelevance of much of the curriculum are all too familiar worldwide. I add, confirming the account of South Africa of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that many children are hungry at school. The provision of a nourishing breakfast or lunch enhances their learning ability and provides better resistance to disease, as we know from our experience in this country over the years.
As the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, has told us, Oxfam, in its campaign, Education Now: Break the Cycle of Poverty, estimates that universal provision of primary education within the next decade would cost 8 billion dollars above what is already spent per annum. I suggest that this might need to be doubled also to raise the standards of existing schools to what is needed. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, that would still amount to only eight days worth of global military spending, or the same amount that American parents spend annually on toys for their children. I suggest that our priorities have become seriously warped if paying big boys to play soldiers for a week is thought to be

1581
more important than the education of the world's poorest children to help them to get onto the first step on the ladder out of poverty.
5.16 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to this debate in the gap. I declare an interest as the husband of a trustee of the Bishop Mubarak Scholarship Fund for Nuba Women. I wish to make two points. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, I wish to speak of Sudan—the north, this time—to illustrate my points.
I have been to many of the squatter townships around Khartoum and Port Sudan. People live in appalling conditions. From time to time the state government raise the townships to the ground and move the people further and further into the desert. Education is virtually impossible to find. Like many of your Lordships, I could carry on describing the situation in graphic detail. But the question really is: how can we effect change? I should be grateful if, when she replies to the debate, the Minister will indicate how Her Majesty's Government can encourage and support a government such as the Government of Sudan to give real priority, and make real provision, for widespread education at a time when their revenue is increasing day by day as the oil flow increases. We look to the Government to try their best to encourage governments abroad, who may be reluctant—not least, when they are fighting a civil war—to give any pre-eminence to education whatever.
I publicly applaud, draw attention to, and affirm the tremendous work done over many decades by Churches, relief organisations and other bodies, some of which are extremely small and will never hit the headlines, yet make a contribution to improving education throughout the world. I refer to the Bishop Mubarak Scholarship Fund for Nuba Women. I echo the concern for proper education for women which has been expressed many times in this debate. Bishop Mubarak was bishop of El Obeid in Sudan. He died in 1996. The fund was set up in his honour to provide education for women from the Nuba Mountains, 90 per cent of whom are illiterate. They are among the most disadvantaged people in Sudan.
We should note that this fund, set up by Christians with Muslim friends, expresses no discrimination on the ground of faith. It cares for Christians, Muslims and people who worship in the African religions alike. There are no strings attached. The response to setting up this fund was astonishing. The Nuba women in Um Bedda met and 100 of them asked to have lessons straight away. The first thing they had to do was to learn to hold a pencil. Their fingers had become so twisted through years of hard labour that they simply could not hold a pencil. Elsewhere, the Nuba women said that they would not wait until July; they wanted their class in April—and they met in a hut where the temperature was 50 degrees centigrade. That shows an enormous amount of dedication.
1582
When one looks at the situation in a country such as Sudan, it seems impossible to address this issue. And yet, one by one, these little organisations are helping some people to be educated—and every child, woman and man who receives an education for the first time is a step forward.
When I am tempted to despair, I remember the occasion when five barley loaves and two small fish were used to feed 5,000. That is my hope. I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate she will applaud what is being done by these charitable bodies and give them hope as well.
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, we cannot all visit the Sudan, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, but there are very many Ethiopians and Somalis in this country whom we can get to know, befriend and become involved with. What are the Government doing to encourage such involvement? Does the Minister agree that involvement fosters interest, care, concern and the drive to achieve all that we have discussed today?
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I add my voice of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. The debate has once again displayed the astonishing level of knowledge and experience in this House. I cannot help thinking that there is a case for a register of altruism to stand alongside the register of interests. By my count, in this debate alone two-thirds of those who have participated have spoken on a basis of their direct relationship to either a charity or some other trust or organisation concerned with the development of the developing world. That is immensely impressive. I wish that occasionally the media would attend some of our debates other than those about fox hunting and Clause 28, which appear to be the only issues that interest them, or us in their view.
I shall not repeat what has already been eloquently said about primary education—a number of noble Lords have spoken with great force—beyond saying that we are all agreed that primary education is the foundation stone of economic development, of democracy and of civil society. Whatever we may say about other stages of education, by definition it has to be the first step; one cannot go on to any other form of education except via primary education.
In regard to primary education, I wish to underline the forceful point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton. She pointed out that it is not only finance which stands in the way of primary education but all too often attitudes. That is well illustrated by the difference between the relatively poor Indian state of Kerala, where 86 per cent literacy has been achieved almost equally between men and women—this owes a good deal to the Christian missions which worked in that region—and other states in India, some of which are better off, where literacy levels are half that rate and sometimes only a quarter among women.

1583
I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brett. I apologise to him because I was called out of the Chamber during the latter part of his remarks. He is right to say that this cause requires not only the powerful and excellent support of the right honourable Clare Short, the Secretary of State for International Development, and in this House of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, but of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brett, pointed out, much of the damage done to education has been as a result of the ill thought through stabilisation plans of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. I shall give only two examples. At the time of the Asian crisis, the stabilisation schemes for Indonesia and Thailand required them to make cuts in public expenditure. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is right: no one enforced those cuts specifically on primary education, but that is where the axe all too often falls. In the case of Indonesia, it fell on the outer islands, which had nothing like the same political power as Java.
To take a very different example, only last year in Brazil plans to stabilise the real forced a choice on its Government between cutting higher education, which in Brazil is free—there are no tuition fees for higher education—or cutting primary education, which largely benefits the rural area. For the reasons expressed so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Desai—reasons connected with power—the choice was made to protect the free higher education, which overwhelmingly benefits the better off in Brazil, and the axe again fell largely on primary education, which even today does not reach two-thirds of the population in a relatively wealthy country.
In the autumn of last year I conducted a debate among educated young Brazilians who were students at the University of Brasilia in which I asked them why they felt that free university education should be protected rather than primary education. They had been voicing the strongest views about primary education until, I regret to say, that moment. I then became the subject of a good deal of attack, on the ground that I did not understand the needs of higher education in Brazil.
My third point concerns the serious issue raised by my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. Their remarkable speeches pointed to what I describe as the "educational trade balance". It is not often talked about, but the inflow of students under our present educational arrangements has, as my noble friend said, been cut by some 49 per cent for less well off Commonwealth country scholarships. They are beginning to disappear. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, and other noble Lords have said, the Commonwealth is an amazing creation. We are foolish to value as lightly as we do almost the only multi-racial association of equals that exists anywhere in the world. Commonwealth scholarships have been a crucial part of that, but they have been badly slashed.
1584
I remember trying to persuade the Treasury in 1979 that its decision to cut subsidies to overseas students should be changed into using the subsidies for scholarships for the most able youngsters from poor families and poor countries. The Treasury could not see the point and obliged the following government to reduce subsidies for overseas students. As many noble Lords know, in one year the loss in trade with Malaysia alone more than offset the whole value of the saving made by the Treasury. With great respect to the Treasury, it is not always the wisest of our government departments, merely the most powerful.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to the other side of the education balance of payments when he talked eloquently about the amazing inflow of free graduate labour into the wealthy countries of the world. To what he said about Germany and the United Kingdom, I would add the United States. Two years ago, the United States changed its immigration policies specifically to allow highly qualified professionals to enter without any of the difficulties that stand in the way of desperately poor Mexican and central American labourers. Like the United States, like the United Kingdom, like Germany, the other rich countries of the world cherry pick some of the most valuable people in the developing world and pay not a penny for them. Let us not forget that educating a single doctor costs something like £ ¼ million.
My fourth point relates to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, on capacity growth. The noble Lord was absolutely right. The assessment of capacity based on experience needs to be examined closely as a crucial bridge between formal and informal education. As the noble Lord said, it takes 20 years for an educated group to mature from the moment that they enter the earliest stages of education. There is therefore a 20-year gap to be filled, and that can only be done by experiential learning and adult education.
In regard to adult education, perhaps I may add to what was said my noble friend Lord Dholakia about Tanzania, by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, about South Africa and by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, about the work that he has done, with IDASA, with South African communities. I have seen similar work done in Rajasthan, one of the poorest states in India, through a charity called Vidya Bhawan, which has set up a local government institute to train young people coming in to the village councils—many of them women under the quota system—many of whom, incidentally, are illiterate. It is unbelievably inspiring to see those very cheap, low-cost residential courses for young men and women with no idea of local government but who slowly learn about budgets, finance, public health and many other subjects.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to a matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, and the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso; namely, distance learning. I simply want to draw attention to the amazing new experiment by the World Bank called the World Wide Web on the Economic Development Forum. It involves some 8,000 people worldwide in contributing, to and commenting on development

1585
policy. It requires World Bank managers, who have often in the past been very superior, to listen to the outcomes of the policies they espouse. I suggest that DfID might like to set up a similar electronic network, feeding back, through e-mail, ideas based on an evaluation and experience of DfID's excellent policies. I believe that that is the way forward to a more massive educational achievement using electronic technology in the way that was so powerfully advocated by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.
Finally, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the Minister and her colleague in another place on the great work that they are doing.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the whole House must be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for introducing this debate, and for bringing a matter before the House that inspired the Leader of the House to attend the early part of the debate. Unfortunately, we have not had nearly enough time to debate a subject of such vital importance—not merely for the developing countries but for the future sustainability of our planet. Almost every speaker has made powerful reference to its seriousness. I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lady Cox for the constant interest that she takes in this subject and for the outstanding work that she does in this field.
One of the characteristics of Thomas More's Utopian society is that every citizen is taught agriculture and also one particular skill. The general economic and social state of the society is such that all citizens have the possibility and the privilege to spend their considerable spare time as they please, with music or conversation; and everyone, male or female, can attend public lectures—I take that to mean education.
Charles Dickens said in 1844:
"I look forward to the time when high and low, and rich and poor, shall mutually assist, improve, and educate each other".
The present state of education in developing countries is far from being a "perfect state of things", with 125 million children out of school worldwide and a drop-out rate of 150 million. Secondly, education clearly cannot be a privilege. It is a fundamental human right and therefore an end in itself. As James Wolfensohn, the World Bank president, has said,
"We all agree that the single most important key to development and to poverty alleviation is education".
Just as important is the role that education plays in determining population growth rates. Economic growth and a reduced debt burden for developing countries are necessary, too, in order to reduce poverty and to enable those countries to invest in education, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Brett, in a clear and focused speech.
A number of different factors are responsible for the still appalling state of education in many developing countries today. The main task is to break the vicious circle of poverty leading to ill-health and poor education, leading in turn once again to poverty. Opinions differ as to the weight of the different factors contributing to the poor state of affairs in many
1586
countries. These include corrupt and/or incompetent governments squandering available resources by diverting funds, mostly into military spending, wars and self-aggrandising prestigious projects; genuine poverty at national and household level; and cultural and religious obstacles.
"Education is the road to culture",
Matthew Arnold said in 1882. At state level, poverty results in a shortage of school places, a lack of schools for local communities and low-quality schooling in terms of both the curriculum and the basic facilities. At household level, direct costs for parents are often too high—school fees, expenditure for school uniforms and textbooks. Many families may also depend on the labour of their children on the farm and around the home—for example, to carry water, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Matthew Arnold also said:
"To model education on sound ideas is of more importance than to have the management of it in one's own hands ever so fully".
Economic development to reduce general poverty is, however, only one condition for securing universal education. One of the most apparent problems is the gender gap in education in many developing countries. In general, girls account for two-thirds of the children who are not in school. The gap is not directly the result of poverty in itself. Research indicates that many religious, cultural and social factors cause the difference in school enrolment between boys and girls. The place for women is often considered to be in the home and the family. That traditional role for women and limited opportunities on the labour market often prevent parents from investing highly limited resources in the education of girls.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, that it is now generally accepted that education for girls is the single most effective way to reduce poverty. When aiming at universal primary education in developing countries, an important effort has to be made to eliminate the gender gap in school enrolment. Basic education for women tends to lead to later marriage, fewer children and healthier families and reduces infant mortality. Education is especially important with a view to diseases, and I refer, for example, to the world-wide HIV pandemic. Another factor is the passing on of education to the next generation: educated mothers are, in turn, more likely to send their children to school, boys and girls.
As primary and secondary education develops, the importance of higher education also increases. According to The Times Higher Education Supplement,
"Without more and better higher education, developing countries will find it increasingly difficult to benefit from [the] global knowledge-based economy".
That point was rightly stressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. It also emphasises the importance of higher education for developing countries that face great and fast-changing economic and environmental challenges. According to the Harvard economist, David Bloom,
"For years economists had under-estimated the importance of higher education".

1587
Finally, one of the major problems that face the world today is the population growth rate. How does one bring down the world's population to sustainable levels? One does so only by giving women the chance to understand the choices available to them by education so they can decide whether and when to marry and space their children and deal with healthcare matters. The human rights of women include their right to have control over, and decide freely and responsibly upon, their sexuality—including sexual and reproductive health—free of coercion, discrimination and violence. If we do not improve the education, welfare and legal status of women there is little hope of solving many of the population problems, even though this vital human right is fraught with problems, not least those arising from aggrieved boys.
I very much hope that the Secretary of State will continue to press for the case at Dakar and for the necessary funds, and will also demonstrate the Government's support for the BBC World Service, which does such a terrific job in this field, so that universal education does not, and cannot, remain a mere utopia for the developing countries of the world.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Whitaker for initiating this debate with a speech which touched on so many issues of concern. It is clear from the contributions from all noble Lords this afternoon that education needs to remain the cornerstone of our strategy to tackle poverty and inequality. As always in a debate of this nature, it is difficult to do justice to an area which is rich in experience and expertise. This debate is made particularly meaningful by the examples and experiences of noble Lords themselves. I also thank noble Lords for their positive references to the work of the Department for International Development and the leadership given to that work by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development, and also for the kind remarks of noble Lords about my own role in that work. I consider it a privilege to have the opportunity to work on issues related to international development.
The matters that have been raised this afternoon are complex. Some noble Lords have argued for greater selectivity in what the department does; others have argued for greater support across the whole sector. I believe that this afternoon four themes have dominated the debate. The first is the importance of looking at education and development, in particular the education of girls. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that in considering girls' education we must ensure that our approach is practical, focused and flexible.
The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, said that Oxfam had put education at the top of its agenda. Oxfam's Global Action Plan for Education and the Read the World campaign by the Guardian have helped to raise
1588
awareness of the plight of the 130 million children not in school, two-thirds of whom are girls. I pay tribute to the leadership which the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, has given in this area. DfID shares the goals of Oxfam. Educational opportunity for all, especially at primary level, is both a fundamental human right and a precondition for progress in development and the reduction of poverty. To deny education to children places a massive block on the development prospects of their countries.
The development case for investing in primary education is now unanswerable. Education helps people to become more productive and to earn more income, and it leads to improvements in health, nutrition and child mortality. It also enables people to transform their own lives, and that of society, and to acquire the basic skills of literacy and numeracy, as well as the capacity to utilise knowledge and information. I agree with my noble friends Lady Whitaker and Lady Gould of Potternewton and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, as to the importance of educating women. Research into the education of girls shows that women with as little as four years of education are likely to have smaller, healthier families, to work their way out of poverty and to send their own children to school. I believe that we have all read the research by the World Bank to which my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen referred. That research suggests that the education of girls is the single most valuable development intervention that a country can make.
My noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton set out clearly what is happening to girls around the world and its tragic implications for development if we do not tackle the issue now. My noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead also talked about the importance of working with women and gave an example of the work that is being done by One World Action in South Africa. It is right to pay tribute to the work of NGOs, churches and other charitable organisations which very much complements the work that we do. In response to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, it is important to work in partnership in Britain as well as in the developing world.
The Government believe that four things need to be done if we are to make gender equality and universal primary education a reality and achieve the target by 2015. The right reverend Prelate asked me specifically how we could effect change and encourage governments to resource education. We need a real and sustained commitment by the governments of developing countries to secure universal primary education. It is only if there is such a commitment that we can work with those governments and help them to put in place the structural changes required.
Secondly, we need to address the resourcing of education. I agree with my noble friend Lord Desai that there is a clear need to increase the level of resources that the governments of developing countries commit to primary and basic education. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, if we look at the balance of resources that are devoted to primary, secondary and higher education, too often the needs of

1589
the primary sector are inadequately funded because the university sector has more vocal and politically influential constituents. For example, in Africa the public subsidy for a university student is 20 times that of a primary school pupil.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso: it is crucial that governments do not impose costs or fees that deter access to primary and basic education for the poor. In some of the countries that I have visited parents make every effort to find the money to send their children to school. I am aware of mothers who do not feed themselves if it means that they can send their children to school for another day or week. We need to stamp that out.
There is also an important role for development donors. Through the DfID's development budget, the British Government have current commitments of around £800 million to education. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, asked me specifically about our contribution. Seventy-seven per cent of that is for basic and primary education—it is the majority of but not all the money—and two-thirds of those resources are concentrated in 11 of the poorest countries of sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. It is important that noble Lords recognise that we are dealing with competing concerns. I do not apologise for the focus we have given to primary education. If we are serious about eliminating poverty, that is what we need to do.
The third factor which DfID believes important is the need to shift from a projects-based approach to a sector-wide approach to basic and primary education. We need to pull together the work of all the different development donors around a focused, agreed strategy drawn up by the government of the country concerned. Too often, aid for education is used to support isolated projects which crumble when external funding comes to an end. Having such individual projects imposes a huge administrative burden.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia—he has had to leave for another pressing engagement—mentioned Tanzania. Tanzania is a good example of a poor country with 30 donors, 1,000 projects and 2,000 aid missions a year. Scarce administrative capacity goes into managing those aid missions. We have been engaged with the Tanzanian Ministry of Education for over three years in seeking to finalise the comprehensive educational sector-wide development programme. We are fully committed to making that programme a reality.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that education for democracy—and by implication, I think, education for citizenship—must be an important part of our agenda. The Commonwealth has a key role to play in ensuring that the countries within the Commonwealth share good practice on these issues. As a development donor it is crucial that our role should be an enabling one—not usurping the role of developing country governments but helping them to create the conditions for providing education for all their children.
If we are to achieve universal primary education by 2015, the fourth thing we need to do is to link education policy with the wider development strategy
1590
of the country, including policies on health, sanitation, livelihoods and rural transport. I shall come back to that point.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker and the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, mentioned the World Education Forum in Dakar on 26th to 28th April. The forum provides an opportunity for governments, development agencies and NGOs from north and south to recommit themselves to education for all, including the achievement of universal primary education by 2015, and gender equality in primary and secondary education by 2005. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, that the achievement of those targets as well as the poverty elimination target is feasible if the political will is there.
In preparation for the forum the DfID has drafted a paper on Education for All: The Challenge of Universal Primary Education. The paper examines what it will take to enable our partners to achieve the development target by 2015. We plan to consult widely on this draft and to finalise it in the light of the Dakar outcome. I hope that noble Lords will have an opportunity to read the paper and contribute to the evolving debate about how we achieve this key international development target. We believe that the forum should pay particular attention to analysing why some countries, including some of the poorest, have managed to achieve considerably more than others since the world conference on education in 1990. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—she gave the example of Kerala—that attitude and commitment make a big difference.
We have seven major priorities for Dakar. There is insufficient time to explore those now. I shall write to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate about those priorities. It would be helpful if noble Lords who have comments on them would reply to me.
The second theme in the debate is the importance of encouraging a wider debate about education in the higher level, in particular the second and tertiary sectors, and taking a balanced view of the whole sector. My noble friend Lord Desai, the noble Lord, Smith of Clifton, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, mentioned the importance of higher education. I assure all noble Lords that while universal primary education is the fundamental building block of our support for education in developing countries, it cannot stand alone within an education system.
We recognise that. It does not provide the work-related skills that many people need to lift themselves from poverty or gain employment. It does not lead to higher education or scientific research. It does not even provide the growing numbers of trained teachers needed to staff the expanding primary sector. So we need to take a balanced view of the whole education sector including provision of adult literacy and lifelong learning. In many developing countries, it is not unusual to find a workforce where less than 5 per cent have some form of secondary schooling. That lack of skills is clearly a drag on the development of the economy as well as on the individual's earning capacity.

1591
We need to look with governments at different ways of providing education at this level which are more efficient and less costly than before. Distance learning, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, is one possibility, using new technologies to expand access to secondary education and skills training. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that we shall continue to support the commonwealth of learning which provides training, institutional networking and expertise in distance course development for countries in the Commonwealth. I agree with my noble friend, Lady Howells, that information technology now provides major new opportunities to increase access to these courses.
The third theme is globalisation and the recognition that we live in a globalising world. As globalisation of markets and economies continues, the world needs not only economic growth but equitable growth that benefits vast numbers of poor people. I assure my noble friend, Lord Haskel, that we recognise that trade and investment can have a much greater impact on development than aid. There is no world shortage of investable funds. But developing countries have to create the conditions to attract that investment. That is the only way to achieve the economic growth necessary to reduce poverty.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked about accountability. I assure the noble Baroness that it is an area we take very seriously indeed. We are promoting better governance nationally and locally in developing countries, making public servants and elected officials accountable to the public, and improving public administration. We are helping developing countries to improve their own systems of financial management, accounting and auditing to help ensure that resources are effectively allocated and used. We are continuously improving our own procedures and capacity to ensure that our development assistance programmes are protected from abuse. Of course, we try to ensure that donors take an integrated approach so that we can maximise our impact. It is not always easy but we shall continue to push for that.
A number of noble Lords spoke of the importance of building capacity. A skilled labour force facilitates investment. Unfortunately, too many poor countries have both a desperate shortage of skills and unemployed graduates. We know that skills and knowledge contribute to higher productivity as well as the capacity to absorb new knowledge and technology from outside sources. Capacity to absorb technology is a product of early investment in basic education and higher level skills in science and technology. But these skills cannot be provided without some kind of policy framework or institutional base. It is to meet that need that the DfID has established a major new programme of assistance and support.
My noble friend Lord Haskel referred to the Skills for Development initiative. Over the next two years, we shall be committing £20 million to the initiative. That will facilitate the stimulation of entrepreneurial skills required by the poorest countries if their economies are to grow. The DfID continues to fund
1592
Commonwealth scholarships, an issue raised by several noble Lords, but only where they are development oriented. As noble Lords are aware, the FCO funds Chevening scholarships.
The Skills for Development initiative has three strands. The first is to assist our partner countries to develop skills in the population which will enable the workforce to contribute to economic growth. Secondly, for those countries where institutions exist but are not sufficiently responsive to skills development, we have established a new programme of links between further education institutions in this country and overseas. Thirdly, our Skills for Development programme will support innovative and knowledge-building projects which can be used to pilot new approaches for skills development work.
I agree with the powerful point made by my noble friend Lord Haskel and endorsed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about the brain drain. That is why we need to reform and strengthen the economies of developing countries—and it is also about making those countries more attractive to their own people.
The fourth theme is linking education to the wider development effort. My noble friend Lady Whitaker described graphically the importance of linking education to the wider development effort when she gave the example of Mali. Other noble Lords referred to education and health. The HIV/AIDS pandemic puts at risk the achievements which have been made in education during the past decade. My noble friends Lord Rea and Lady Massey made particular reference to that.
In many countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa but increasingly in Asia, the cost of HIV/AIDS to the education system will have to be factored into government resource planning. The steady loss of teachers and others from the education system is already putting a break on the provision and quality of primary education.
My noble friends Lady Massey and Lord Rea and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, mentioned reproductive rights and sex education. Young people—boys and girls—need good sex education to enable them to make informed, responsible decisions to protect their health and safeguard their future. That is an important area of support for us.
Three other issues were raised. Debt relief was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Whitaker. In Jamaica, we have linked the resources which have been saved through the Commonwealth debt initiative to targeting education. The rationale behind debt relief is to make progress on poverty reduction, and countries qualifying for debt relief have to put in place poverty reduction strategies.
My noble friend Lord Tomlinson raised the issue of capacity building and in particular the need for developing countries to have sufficient capacity to negotiate effectively in international forums. I can assure my noble friend that we have resourced

1593
developing countries to enable them to do precisely that. One example is the support we have given to CARICOM to improve its competence on trade.
My noble friend Lord Brett focused his remarks on the role of the international financial institutions. As he anticipated, I shall repeat that we have worked hard for reforms in both the IMF and World Bank and the inclusion of social data when they make proposals for economic reform. I agree with my noble friend that further reforms are needed. We shall show determination when we work with the IMF and World Bank on these issues.
In conclusion, perhaps I may quickly return to the question of basic and primary education for all. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, that the Internet and new technology are huge and significant tools for spreading educational opportunities. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that using the Internet to facilitate education is important. But we must also remember that millions of children might never learn to read. They might never have the opportunity to go to school unless we take more effective action. The Government are strongly committed to bringing the benefits of educational opportunities to millions of children and to helping spread skills and knowledge so that all countries can accelerate their development, reduce poverty and give everyone the chance to realise their potential.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, this has been a high calibre debate, with contributions of wide-ranging expertise and first-hand knowledge. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part.
Your Lordships' contributions will be read in detail internationally. The fact that the Hansard Internet address is for the first time on the inside cover, courtesy of the Editor, means that the debates can be more easily communicated and downloaded all over the world. That is peculiarly appropriate for this subject because international pressure is now needed, as my noble friend the Minister emphasised. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Selection in Education
6.6 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question which was asked in another place earlier this afternoon.
"I am happy to repeat to this House the Government's position on grammar schools. We have said on a number of occasions that we have no intention of changing the status of grammar schools unless parents wish it. I am happy to repeat that commitment today.
1594
"The policy which the Labour Party agreed in 1995 and our manifesto both said that the decision on whether grammar schools continue to use the 11-plus would be a matter for parents, not local education authorities. That was agreed by both Houses of Parliament in the School Standards and Framework Act, which remains the law. It remains our position today.
"My noble friend the Minister for Education and Employment said in the other place last night that we would restore that position in the Commons following the Lords' vote to end balloting. We fully respect the vote of parents in Ripon, but it is hard to see how it could be taken as an expression of views in other areas any more than a by-election vote is an expression of the views of those in every other constituency in the land. One ballot should never be allowed to pre-empt the decisions of others with very different electorates.
"While the Opposition keep re-running the debates of the sixties, we are focused on improving standards through diversity and excellence in our education system as a whole. The Government have already significantly extended diversity. We have now 480 specialist schools approved, 250 beacon schools. We have brought in new voluntary aided schools from the independent sector for Jewish, Muslim and Sikh children. The Excellence in Cities programme is focusing targeted resources in inner-city secondaries in London and five other major cities. We have been ready to tackle failure in inner-city schools, where the party opposite simply stood on the sidelines. As a result, failing schools are being turned around in 17 months now rather than 25 previously.
"Yes, we can learn from the first Fresh Start schools, but leaving schools to sink or close is not an alternative which this Government will accept. So today I can tell the House that we are inviting promoters from the voluntary, religious or business sectors to bring forward proposals to take over weak or failing schools or to replace them with new city academies.
"The promoters of the academy will have plans for improving education for all the pupils attending the school which is to be replaced. We will use existing legislative powers to establish them. They will be built and managed by partnerships involving the state, voluntary, Church and business sponsors. Over the next year, we intend to launch the first academies. We will be looking for imaginative proposals from potential promoters. The aim will always be to improve pupil performance by breaking the cycle of low expectations. Promoters may use different approaches to management, governance, teaching, the school day and the curriculum. We would expect a specialist focus in at least one curriculum area. The academies will also work with other local schools.
"So, yes, we will leave the decision on grammar schools to parents. That has been our policy for nearly five years. It is not this side that is confused

1595
about policy but the Opposition. The Conservative spokeswoman in the House of Lords yesterday sought to encourage the establishment of new grammar schools with an amendment which was defeated. Yet on 1st October 1999, the honourable Lady opposite told the Times Educational Supplement:
'I don't get the impression that in areas where there arc no grammar schools, there is a great groundswell of opinion in favour of introducing them'.
"When it had the chance to improve our schools, the party opposite let down millions of children. As Secretary of State, I am determined that all children have the equality of opportunity to fulfil their potential, not uniformity that treats every pupil the same. That is why I am willing to leave decisions on grammar schools to parents locally and why I have no intention of shifting my focus from that of driving up standards".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Answer. However, first, I am deeply disappointed that the conventions of the House were not followed and that I was not given a copy of it. I had to go to the noble Baroness's own Whips' Office and was given a copy of the Statement which belonged to one of the clerks in that office. I find that a deeply unsatisfactory state of affairs. I received it literally only two or three minutes before I walked into the Chamber, and only after my own efforts to Find it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. This Statement was made as a result of an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place. In the case of a PNQ, it is not customary to give the Answer to the Opposition Front Bench. I speak as one who served on the Opposition Front Bench for 10 years. It is only in the case of a formal Statement in another place that the Opposition Front Bench get a shot at it first.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is as may be. However, copies of the Statement are available. The Minister has it; the clerks in her office have it; and I believe that it would have been a courtesy to have allowed me to see a copy of it, too.
Secondly, I refer to one of the lines in the Statement which the noble Baroness repeated:
"It is not this side that is confused about policy, but the Opposition".
At the weekend, almost every single newspaper in this country was also confused. The statements of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment were widely welcomed in most newspapers but they created some puzzlement in others. However, among people up and down the land who have a connection with grammar schools—the staff, the parents and the pupils—there was elation because of words such as "end of hostilities against grammar schools", "drawing a line in the sand", "putting these arguments
1596
behind us" and "arguments about selection are now a thing of the past". There was a great deal of excitement. I wonder what the noble Baroness will say to many of the staff and parents who have been in touch to say how disappointed they are today.
The noble Baroness is aware that the Secretary of State's Statement was extremely disappointing. However, when one strips away all the words, it amounts to a very real message to the anti-grammar school campaigners, "Don't stop your work! Keep burrowing, keep harassing, and we will use the might of our vote in another place to back you".
Since that statement, does the noble Baroness appreciate the reaction of grammar school staff, parents and children? I give as an example the experience of Mrs Margaret Lemon, head teacher of Slough Grammar School. On Saturday morning a meeting of 500 people took place at Slough Grammar School. They were overjoyed with the Ripon result and greeted it with cheers. They were even more thrilled this morning when they heard the news of your Lordships' decision yesterday. However, all their hopes are now dashed. It is a source of great jollity to the noble Lord, Lord Bach. I believe that the sentiments of those parents were genuine; they felt exceedingly let down after having their hopes raised by the Secretary of State over the weekend.
Mr Martin Morys, headmaster of Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School, said:
"It was with enormous relief that I heard the Ripon result. I thought that the end was in sight when I saw today's papers".
But the message from the Secretary of State today is that the end is not in sight and that the war of attrition must go on.
We welcome the announcement today about academies. Indeed, we should regard it as something of a flattering proposition. They are modelled on the city technology colleges. They will be given the freedom that those colleges enjoy, longer days, and involvement with business. They will be freed from teaching the national curriculum, and I wish them well. Certainly, we support the record of the city technology colleges and the way in which the experience of those colleges spawned specialist schools. The noble Baroness's party has picked up, supported and, indeed, extended that.
However, one cannot get away from the Secretary of State's Statement. We understand from a Question earlier today that it was only the reference to "watch my lips" that was the joke. Not many people got that until the other day. As the Daily Mail journalist said, it took us five years to understand the punch-line. Nevertheless, once we understood it, we knew that he was serious about the other half of the statement:
"There will be no selection. either by interview or examination".
That is what he said and that is what we understand him to have meant and to be true. However, it is not true. Ministers' children are being selected by interview as we speak. Ministers' children are enjoying selective education as we speak. Some of them have been selected by interview and others by examination under a Labour Government; indeed, not only under

1597
a Labour Government but belonging to a Labour Government. The level of hypocrisy here is absolutely breathtaking.
At lunchtime I asked the noble Baroness a question and a large number of my colleagues were disappointed that I did not receive an answer. Therefore, I shall ask my question again. We welcome and strongly support the right of the Prime Minister and his ministerial and parliamentary colleagues to choose schools which select on the basis of interview and/or examination—to choose the best school for their children. We would advocate that for all parents. However, I want to know what defence the noble Baroness has for saying that that is all right for Mr Blair, for his ministerial colleagues and for his parliamentary colleagues, but it is not all right for all the other parents up and down this land. That question really must be answered. If it is not, it betrays a level of hypocrisy not only that we deem to be present but that the Government defend shamelessly.
Selection also exists within the system, with interviews, auditions and testing for music, dance, sport, science and technology, and for special needs children. What is so sinful about making a special arrangement for children of high academic ability? Why single them out? Why discriminate against them? I believe that this represents discrimination, positively, against a group of young people who will be denied a choice. If the Secretary of State and the noble Baroness are to be taken at their word, are not really interested, want to put this debate behind them and believe that what happens to grammar schools is a matter for people at local level, why do they say time and time again that they do not approve of selection and that there will be no selection by interview or by examination under a Labour Government? If the parents in other grammar schools vote as they did at Ripon, it will continue. Are they some kind of pariah in the system that is not agreed to by the noble Baroness?
Yesterday we had an interesting debate on this side of the House with the Liberals, whom I criticised for being inconsistent in their support for selection, national and local. We said that we knew Liberal Democrats who were actively and in many cases overtly supporting their grammar schools, and we had to remind them that in Parliament Liberal Democrats always vote against selection. I looked up Hansard, and found that I had wrongly accused the noble Lord, Lord Tope. It was to his noble friend Lady Maddock that I said:
"Does the noble Baroness know that some Liberal Democrats support some of their local grammar schools around the country? Does that sit easily with what she has just said?"
The answer came:
"The noble Baroness will know that we support different things locally from what we do nationally."—[Official Report, 10/6/98; co1.1048.]
There it is. I said that I would find it.
My final point is as follows. Almost every time we have this kind of discussion the noble Baroness prays in aid a question as to whether we have a serious interest in raising standards. I do. I applaud diversity,
1598
choice, beacon schools, city technology colleges, specialist schools, bilateral schools, grammar schools and comprehensive schools. All are good, good because diversity and choice are there for all parents.
But I wish to tell the noble Baroness that I have been in this business for a very long time, using my energies to help support policies for raising standards. The greatest opposition to the work over the 18 years when we were in power was twofold. The Labour Opposition in both Houses opposed the setting up of CTCs, specialist schools, the introduction of the national curriculum, assessment and testing, grant-maintained schools and devolution of budgets. They did so tooth and nail, all the way down the line. Much of that has now been adopted as Labour Party policy.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but we are dealing with a Private Notice Question, following the rules, which is here in the form of a Statement. The noble Baroness will know much better than I that ministerial statements are made for the information of the House, and that although brief comments and questions for clarification from all quarters of the House are allowed, such statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate. The noble Baroness had spoken for nine minutes when I rose. She might think that that is a bit long, bearing in mind that this is the equivalent of a Statement.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I stand to be corrected by the Clerk at the Table, but I have been in the House since 1987, and my understanding is that each Front Bench spokesman makes a full and entirely free response to the statement from the Government Benches, that at that time the clock is stopped and that then the Clerk starts it again for 20 minutes for questions. If I am wrong, I will stand chided by the noble Lord.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am very wary, because of the noble Baroness's long experience—much greater than mine—-in this House, but I read as follows from the Companion:
"Ministerial statements are made for the information of the House, and although brief comments and questions for clarification from all quarters of the House are allowed, such statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate. Discussion on a statement should not exceed 20 minutes from the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen".
That does not imply that the Opposition spokesmen are allowed to take part in a debate.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that confirms what I have just said, that the 20 minutes start from the end of the Opposition's spokesman's statement, and I believe that I can complete my statement.
I was coming to my last comment: the second thwarting factor of much of what we were trying to do in those 18 years was Labour-controlled councils. I would single out two: conspicuously, Islington and Sheffield. Both were producing the most awful education. They were spending much more per head

1599
than others on their children in the schools, but the education was appalling. The present Secretary of State presided over a great deal of failed education, and I will take no criticism from the noble Baroness of our intention to work hard to improve standards, and indeed to support the Government when they are working towards that.
This Statement will come as no comfort whatsoever to those of us who support freedom in education and as much choice and diversity as possible for all the children in this country.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I rise with slight trepidation, in view of the previous exchange. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement here. It was a fairly wide-ranging Statement in reply to a very specific question. The response from the Conservative Front Bench has possibly been more wide-ranging, even embracing Liberal Democrat policy, locally and nationally.
I understand very well how strongly and deeply the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, feels about grammar schools. Nobody who takes part in education debates in this House could doubt that. But it is becoming an obsession. We must be reminded that, whatever our views on the issue of selection and grammar schools, only four and a half per cent of our children attend grammar schools. This is not a mainstream issue for education as a whole. In most parts of the country it is, and has been for a long time, a complete non-issue.
As I was forced to remind the House yesterday, I happen to be closely associated with an area in which it has been a major issue for the last 30 years, and continues to be. But I must say again to the noble Baroness on the Conservative Front Bench that, as I demonstrated yesterday, it is not a vote winning issue, even in the London Borough of Sutton. So I worry and wonder about the obsession that she and some of her colleagues have with what is such a minority issue. Perhaps we should not worry too much about it, but while they are trying to appeal to their hard core support they are missing the real education issues and the issues of concern to a far wider group of people.
Before I turn to the Government, I wish to say that I also, coming from Sutton particularly, view with considerable scepticism the noble Baroness's concern about the instability and uncertainty for schools faced with the possibility of a ballot once every five years. It was not the present government that introduced ballots to schools. It was the last government, when they introduced grant-maintained status. I speak from personal experience when I say that that introduced considerable uncertainty in schools over far shorter periods than once every five years.
I want to turn to the Government's Statement, not the Opposition's. The Minister said yesterday, before the vote, that were it to be lost the Government would use their majority in the House of Commons to overturn that. I suspect that none of us doubted that that would be the case. But I urge the Government to use this opportunity, unwelcome though its cause is, to review the ballot arrangements.
1600
I heard the Secretary of State in the other place this afternoon. Perhaps unlike the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench, although I did not have a printed copy of the Statement, I took the opportunity to listen to it being made a couple of hours earlier. I heard the Secretary of State take comfort from the fact that at Ripon both sides of the argument felt the ballot had been rigged. A less emotive expression might be that the ballot system was flawed. He took comfort because he believed that if both sides thought it was wrong it was about right.
There is another explanation, which is that if both sides think the ballot was flawed maybe they are both right and the ballot system was flawed. So I urge the Government to look at that system. It cannot be right, just to use the Ripon example, that the children of one in four of the parents who took part in the ballot are in a private school and that parents who have their children in a grammar school are not entitled to vote.
My party has a much wider concern. We do not support the parental ballot at all, because, although parents are crucially important to schools, schools are part of the whole community, not just the property or interest of parents alone. Therefore, if those decisions are to be taken, they should be taken by the whole community or, more particularly, by the elected and democratic representatives of the whole community after full and proper consultation with that whole community.
Although the interruption is perhaps unwelcome, it provides an opportunity for the Government to put it to advantage. With the experience of one ballot which has now taken place and various attempts to get up a petition to call a ballot, they should review that process. We can all learn from experience and certainly this Government can do so. I hope that if they are not prepared to trust LEAs—and all the evidence is, and is again today, that they are not prepared to do so—they will at least look at the ballot system which is being used and make much-needed improvements to it.
The Secretary of State took the opportunity given to him by the Opposition to say a lot more about the Government's education policies. Indeed, he made an announcement in the House about today's initiative which has been announced in a six-page DIEE press release; namely, that of city academies.
Since the Minister has repeated that Statement, perhaps I may ask one or two questions about that.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord because he has been on his feet for only a very few minutes indeed. But, as I understand it, the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House in its first report for the Session 1998–99 made the following ruling:
"While there will be exceptions, the time for the two Opposition front benches and the reply to them should be limited to 20 minutes, as for the backbenches".
We are now on 18 minutes. That is not through any fault of the noble Lord. This is a Private Notice Question so one would not have thought that it was exceptional in that sense. I am sure that the House

1601
wants to hear my noble friend's reply to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord but I am afraid that she will not have sufficient time to answer appropriately to the House. I am sorry to have interrupted the noble Lord but that is the point I make.
Lord Tope: My Lords, of course I shall and wish to obey the rules of the House. But I protest most strongly. I have not had very much time at all. I did not want to intervene in the argument between the other two Front Benches. However, if the effect of one spokesperson speaking for far too long is to deny the other spokesperson any opportunity to say anything and, perhaps of even more concern to the House, to deny the Minister the right to reply effectively and properly to the points which have been made, then that procedure needs to be looked at and tightened up. But I shall not abuse the procedures of the House. I could not and would not do that.
Perhaps I may ask a few questions about the new city academies, as they are to be called. What significant differences are there to be between the city academies and the city technology colleges, which I recall the Minister's party was not too keen on? What are to be the admission arrangements for the new city academies?
There is more that I wish to say but in view of the points which have been made to me, I shall not do so.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief as I feel that I do not have much choice. But since most of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, were debating points rather than specific questions and since this is not the occasion to have a debate, I do not intend to do so.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not receive a copy of the Statement. I am certainly willing to look into that. But I do not believe that it is for my private office to provide copies of the Statement. That is a matter for the House authorities.
The noble Baroness said that there has been a "war of attrition". Once again she used a great deal of purple prose, repeating what was said yesterday. It is not the aim of this Government to have a war of attrition in any way. I repeat what I said yesterday and what was said by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State this afternoon. We intend to continue with our policies, which are to have the highest possible standards in all, not just a few, of our secondary schools and to allow parents the right to ballot in the small remaining number of places where grammar schools are still in existence.
The noble Baroness asked me about Labour politicians who have sent their children to schools where interviews or examinations still take place. I really do not think that it is right or proper for me to comment on private or personal choices made by my colleagues. I am rather surprised that the noble Baroness wants to spend so long on that.
She also raised the issue of selection and its continuation under this Government. She used examples of music and ballet schools and provision for
1602
special educational needs children. I merely say that it would be patently absurd—and I say this as somebody who has spent a lifetime with a passionate interest in ballet—to admit children to highly specialised schools providing an extremely specialised form of training without selecting them for talent. Most Members of this House would not have been able to go to a ballet school and would not have been able to benefit from it. That is totally different from a situation in which children are not going to highly specialised schools which are training for a particular talent but are going to schools offering a broad and wide-ranging curriculum.
To suggest that this Government discriminate against able children and treat them as pariahs is absolute nonsense, and the noble Baroness knows it. We have done a great deal to support good provision for gifted and able children and we shall continue to do so.
I turn now to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I am very sorry that he did not have a great deal of time to make the points that he wanted to. I agree with him entirely that the issue with which the Conservative Opposition seem so obsessed is not a mainstream issue. It is not something about which parents out there are concerned because 95 per cent of parents send their children to non-selective comprehensive schools. Many of them are delighted with the results which the best of those schools are able to provide. This Government are also determined to make sure that those comprehensive schools which are not performing as well as they should be are helped and supported so that they perform very much better.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked me about ballots. It is not our intention to make any changes to the system. We believe that we have the balance right and we shall continue to operate it in the way that it has been set up.
He asked about the new academies which have been announced today. It is very early days. The Government intend to consult with all the parties which are to be involved in the establishment of those schools. After that consultation period is over, we shall issue a prospectus and I shall be very happy to make sure that the noble Lord receives one.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, if one puts labels on children, they live up to those labels? The consequence of selection is that we label children. By making them live up to those labels, we contribute either to the problem of exclusion or the establishment of sink schools.
Does it not also devalue the quality of primary education where the head teacher, either because of professional ambition or parental pressure, concentrates far too much on the techniques of examination?
Does my noble friend accept also that if we have failing schools, they will not be turned round within a 12-month period, even if the person parachuted in is of

1603
the highest calibre? Does she agree that a longer period is needed in order to tackle the problems which failure brings about?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept entirely that labelling children as failures at the age of 11 is an extremely unfortunate practice. Many children and, indeed, children going through adolescence and right into adulthood have suffered from that process. They have felt stigmatised by it and have felt unable to escape from that labelling process. They have had no opportunity, as late developers, to make up for the fact that they were late developers. So I entirely agree with my noble friend on that matter.
It is important that we do all we can to turn around failing schools as quickly as possible. I am extremely pleased that those schools on special measures have been turned around much more quickly since the Government came to power than was the case previously. That is a indication of the Government's commitment to provide adequate support, resourcing staff with great commitment to help such schools. The time it takes for a failing school to be brought back to health has been reduced from 25 months at the time of the election to 17 months now.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I refer to the declaration of interests I made yesterday. Perhaps I may ask the Minister the following question. Something must have happened to have caused the Secretary of State in a number of performances last Sunday to execute the evolution, if not the volte-face that so annoyed the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, in our debate yesterday. What was it, and why did he do it?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure to what the noble and learned Lord refers. I am not sure what particularly annoyed my noble friend Lord Hattersley yesterday. That really is a question to put to my noble friend Lord Hattersley.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I declare that I attended a grammar school; I met my wife at a grammar school; I taught in a grammar school—an excellent school which was vastly superior to the private schools littered around the place; and that my children went to a grammar school. From all that, I learned one thing: that to decide the future of a child at 11 is wrong. Selection at 11 transforms children's futures. Passing the 11-plus made all the difference to my life. If that had not happened, I do not know what would have happened to my career. It made a great deal of difference.
The question that I want to ask—obeying the rules of these debates—concerns failing schools. A school in my constituency is named after me. It is not a constituency throughout which large numbers of people pass the 11-plus. Who is to decide what constitutes a failing school? Will it be decided by the number of 0-levels—or whatever they are called these
1604
days—or A-levels passed? What is a "failing school"? A school may be doing well but not performing in a way that appeals to academics. Who is to decide?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I share my noble friend's view that failure at the age of 11 has blighted the lives of many young people, as I said in response to an earlier question. That is not to say that when there was a system of grammar schools, they did not provide many of us with a good education. I do not deny that, but it is a quite different point.
My noble friend asked what constitutes a "failing school". He will be aware that schools are regularly inspected and that it is through the inspection process carried out by Ofsted that schools are designated as "failing". On a whole variety of objective criteria, those schools are not doing the job that we expect of them. I am happy to send my noble friend more precise details of the criteria which Her Majesty's Chief Inspector considers when designating schools in that way.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, in the Statement, the Minister spoke about the academies which may replace failing schools. She said that such academies may specialise. If they specialise in certain subjects, will they not automatically become selective? Surely, if there is a specialised character to a school, that in itself will result in selection.
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords. Such schools will not become automatically selective. There are already a substantial number of specialist schools. Those schools do not select by ability and it is not our intention that the new city academies should do so.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I am still reeling from the suggestion that the failure to raise standards over 18 years of government was the fault of Labour when the Conservatives were in control—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did not say that we failed to raise standards. I simply said that two thwarting factors were very material during those years.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, in relation to whether failure or success prevailed, will the Minister confirm that under the previous administration more than four in 10 pupils did not reach the expected levels in literacy and numeracy? What chance did those pupils have of succeeding in secondary education? Does she agree that standards would be undermined by the Conservative Opposition, who, they told us, would immediately remove the literacy hour and other measures which the Government have taken to raise standards in education?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, I confirm that under the previous administration, more than four in 10 pupils did not reach the expected level for their age in literacy and numeracy. That has spelt disaster for

1605
the large numbers of young people who leave school with extraordinarily poor levels of literacy and numeracy. We are absolutely determined to turn round that situation. It is surprising that the party opposite has not given wholehearted support to our initiatives on literacy and numeracy and, indeed, to the many other ways in which we are turning around primary schools and improving the output of schools for young children.
shall give a few figures: 11 year-olds achieved higher standards than ever in the 1999 tests in English and Mathematics. At the time of the election, when the targets were set, 57 per cent of 11 year-olds reached the target expected for their age in English and 54 per cent did so in Maths. This year, the corresponding figures are 70 per cent and 69 per cent. It is particularly encouraging that nine out of 10 of the education authorities making the greatest gains are in deprived areas.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I return to the question of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. Clearly, the Minister has forgotten what the noble Lord. Lord Hattersley, said to her yesterday. My understanding of what the Secretary of State said—I am paraphrasing it; I do not have a note of it but I am repeating it from memory—was that he would like to draw a line under the issue, to stop hunting grammar schools, and to leave the matter as it is. Surely that is inconsistent with the Statement that the Minister has just read out.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have not forgotten what my noble friend Lord Hattersley said yesterday. He made a long and highly eloquent speech in which he raised a great number of different issues. He made a number of criticisms of the Government and many more of the Conservative Opposition during their period in power. I have absolutely no idea to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, was referring. What my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said is entirely consistent with what he has said since 1995 when that policy was first set out at the Labour Party Conference. He has said the same thing again and again and he has done so today in the Statement which I repeated to this House.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, is not the real issue the question of raising educational standards in the 3,600 secondary schools up and down the land, not the admissions policy of 164 grammar schools? Is it not the case that we should like the Opposition to be obsessive about raising educational standards to satisfy the desire and needs of parents up and down the land who want to see resources going into our secondary schools in order to raise educational standards?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, a number of speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Tope, have already referred to the Conservative Opposition's obsession with this particular issue. I have already said that I do not believe that it is an issue about which the vast majority of parents around the country are
1606
particularly concerned. We must focus on ways in which we can improve our secondary schools. Many schools could be improved. Many are doing a good job, but I am sure that the head teachers of even the best schools would welcome a commitment to doing all that we can to improve those schools, let alone those which are not performing as well as they might.
As I made clear yesterday, this Government are spending an extra 16 per cent in real terms on education in this Parliament. Over the course of the Parliament, the proportion of national income spent on education will rise, whereas in the previous Parliament it fell. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment set out a radical programme for raising standards in our secondary education, particularly at key stage 3. That is a crucial stage between 11 and 14 years, a phase of education that has been grossly neglected in the past. This is a real agenda, raising standards for all our pupils, but most particularly for those in disadvantaged communities.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to a matter that occurred at the outset of these proceedings: namely, whether a copy of the Statement is to be vouchsafed to Opposition spokesmen. If an answer to a Private Notice Question is to be economically and constructively elucidated, surely there is every reason why it should be so vouchsafed. Could the matter perhaps be considered by the usual channels and preferably then by the Procedure Committee?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his intervention. He has made a sensible suggestion, that this matter should be considered by the usual channels and then, indeed, by the Procedure Committee. It is important that Opposition spokesmen should receive copies of Statements as soon as they can. I am surprised that the noble Baroness did not receive one.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, why is the choice of a child for a school where ballet, for example, is a specialist item, not a form of selection?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I did not say that it was not a form of selection. The noble Baroness could not have been listening. I said that it was bizarre and absurd to suggest that there was something strange about the Government being selective through their music and ballet scheme. The scheme supports a small number of highly specialist institutions which provide training for those children who show great talent in a particular area such as ballet, music or playing an instrument. Of course they tend to be selected. These schools are about developing that talent. If a child does

1607
not have any such talent, it cannot benefit from such schools, which is what I said. The noble Baroness could not have been paying attention.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I thought that the government view was that there was to be no selection in general terms; that comprehensively, overall there would be no selection. Am I mistaken?
Baroness Blatch: That is what he said.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am afraid I am losing patience. I cannot believe that such obtuse questions can be asked. I have made clear that the Government are opposed to selection for standard secondary schools which cover a broad curriculum. The Government have never said that they are opposed to selection for highly specialised music or ballet schools. We have to have selection in those cases because only a tiny minority of children would be able to benefit from the curriculum they provide. They are, in part, training institutions as well as schools providing general education for people who need to be trained at a much earlier age than is normal because of the nature of the particular talent they have.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree—
Lord Bach: My Lords—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have not yet reached 20 minutes.
Lord Bach: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Baroness, the Front-Benchers have had their turn. The Back-Benchers have now had their turn. As I understand it, what normally happens at this stage is that we move on to the next business. If I am wrong, I am sure I shall be put right. The Front-Benchers have had their 20 minutes. The Back-Benchers have now had as long as they want. We should not return to the Front Bench.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the noble Baroness—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would help me. I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees. I went to a grammar school. I took my eleven plus at the age of 10. I only subsequently discovered, when I passed, what incredible anxiety it created for my parents, who literally became ill.
Most important, from the day I left primary school, I never again met or saw three quarters of the boys and girls with whom I was at that school. I cannot believe that anyone in this Chamber would wish that the opportunity for a life chance should be taken and lost or won at 10 and that communities could ever possibly
1608
be built on a system which strikes one quarter of the children away from three-quarters of the friends they made at primary school. It surely is insane. I really believed that we were moving into a sensible system of education which prevented that type of community and parental pressure and dreadful pressure on the children.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I strongly endorse the comments of my noble friend. One of the great disadvantages of the previous selective system was that it divided children into sheep and goats. It meant that children who had been at primary school together were separated. Some, as I have said earlier, were labelled as failures. Others were immediately defined as successes. It cannot be right to do that to 11 year-old children. That is why this Government oppose the principle of selection by ability in this context.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, apropos the answer to my noble friend Lady Fookes—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is it in order for a person who has asked a question from the Front Bench to move to the Back Bench in order to ask a question from the Back Bench as part of the time allocated to the Back Benchers? If it is, I seriously think that this is a matter which should be considered by the Procedure Committee.
Lord Tope: My Lords, if that is in order, I claim the right to move to the Back Bench and complete the statement I was to make but which the noble Baroness deprived me of the time for so doing. That is completely out of order and I trust that the authorities will consider it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall put my question in writing to the noble Baroness.

Inherited SERPS
6.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on inherited SERPS which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on entitlement to inherited SERPS.
"Fourteen years ago, the last government made a series of pensions policy changes, which they took through Parliament. One of those changes meant that, from this April, a husband or wife could inherit a maximum of one-half of their spouse's SERPS entitlement.

1609
"The department published the correct information for about a year after the policy change. Pensions professionals also knew about the change. But it is clear that from early 1987 to 1996 DSS information leaflets were issued that did not refer to it.
"It is also clear that wrong information was given to a number of people by some Benefits Agency staff during this period, and for some time after that. There is no doubt that as a result a number of people were misled, and so could have lost out.
"The giving of wrong information by a government department is inexcusable. There is a clear responsibility to ensure that the information provided is accurate and complete. In this case, it was not; and, what is more, even the serious implications of giving the wrong information were not appreciated by the department. This should never have happened. The last government should have sorted this out years ago.
"Three reports are being published today. First, the ombudsman has investigated four sample complaints. Secondly, the Comptroller and Auditor General is publishing his report on what happened and the action needed to prevent a repetition. Thirdly, the NAO, at my request, also carried out a joint review with internal audit, of the DSS management during the relevant period.
Together, these reports provide a damning indictment of what happened over these years. All those reports will be available in the Library and Vote Office.
"I intend to accept all the recommendations made by the NAO and the ombudsman; and, I can tell the House, I propose to go further in two respects. I will, of course, respond to any additional recommendations that might arise from any subsequent PAC or Select Committee investigation.
"I will turn in a moment to the steps I am taking to make sure that this does not happen again. But first I want to set out my proposals to provide redress for those who lost out.
"First, there are certain groups who cannot be affected in any way. These include people who would have retired before SERPS was introduced, single and divorced people, and those who have already been widowed.
"Secondly, the policy change due to come into force this April will not come in until 6th October 2002, in two and a half years' time. Because of that, anyone who is widowed before October 2002 will not be affected. Their spouses will still be entitled to inherited SERPS under the current rules.
"Thirdly, we will also provide redress for those people who were wrongly informed and who, had they known the true position, might have made different arrangements.
"Let me tell the House how Ministers have approached this matter. As a matter of principle, we believe that when someone loses out because they were given the wrong information by a government
1610
department, they are entitled to redress. In applying that principle, Ministers considered two options: first, deferral for up to 14 years; and secondly, a protected rights scheme. We want to ensure that everyone who has been misled and lost out gets redress. Deferral alone does not solve the problem.
"Take, for example, a 65 year-old today who was previously given the wrong information. If he dies at, say, 80, his widow has still lost out, but that is not what he was told would happen. We think that she must have access to redress. Deferral has not provided a solution for this couple.
"Someone who got the correct information and spent money buying alternative arrangements would feel aggrieved if it now turns out that he need not have done so.
"However, a protected rights scheme does provide redress. No one, including people already retired, who was misinformed, and who might have acted differently had they had the correct information, need lose out. Therefore, I am setting up an Inherited SERPS Scheme.
"The scheme will allow individuals to apply to have their current rights to inheritance of SERPS preserved. To be eligible to apply, applicants must be married, must have paid national insurance contributions since 1978, and must have been misinformed after 1986.
"The NAO report identifies a number of criteria considered essential to the success of the scheme. I agree with those recommendations. The scheme will be well publicised. We will consult widely. And crucially, we will not proceed with processing applications from the public until we are satisfied that they can be dealt with effectively.
"Postponing implementation of the policy for everyone will also allow time for claims to the scheme to be made and processed. Because I do not consider that the Benefits Agency has the capacity to deal with this work, we will set up a separate unit specially for the purpose.
"We will consult the appropriate interested bodies on the delivery of the scheme, including the ombudsman and the National Audit Office. We are also writing to a number of interested organisations today.
"In working out the details for this scheme, there is an obligation on the Government to ensure that we have a system to get money to those who have lost out, just as there is an obligation on individuals to tell the truth.
"I shall put before the House the full details of the Inherited SERPS Scheme, including what information we will require from those wishing to claim and the procedures that will be followed to scrutinise those claims. The NAO and the ombudsman will be fully involved in developing these procedures.
"I am setting up a helpline for anyone who is concerned. Advertisements over the next few days will publicise its number, 0845 600 6116. It opens

1611
tomorrow at 7 a.m. I am also writing to all right honourable and honourable Members today, setting out our proposals.
"I have set out my proposals to put matters right for those people affected. But I also want to prevent this problem happening again. The crux of this problem was that there was no clear line of accountability for ensuring that the policy changes were properly implemented, or that information provided to the public was accurate and complete. It is symptomatic of a wider problem I had already identified in the department. It was not focused on the people it was meant to serve—in this case, on pensioners—both today's and tomorrow's.
"I have already begun the process of change, focusing the department on its key client groups: children, working age and pensioners. We need to give a better, dedicated service to pensioners. I am already setting up a modern service, with modern communications, so that pensioners can get information and advice on both pensions and benefits available to them.
"Today I can announce the next step. I am bringing together policy and operational responsibility for pensions under a single organisation, distinct from the Benefits Agency. This new organisation will be solely focused on the needs of pensioners and pensions policy. It will deal with everything from policy development to frontline service delivery, from changes in the law to changes in the leaflets.
"We also have a responsibility to provide clear information to the public. We have already tightened up the procedures for checking leaflets and guidance, but we need to do more. The public rely on government information. They are entitled to be reassured that leaflets are accurate and comprehensive. But I believe that all our leaflets should be subject to external independent audit. This should include consultation with others to ensure that all DSS leaflets are written in plain English. I have therefore asked the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is an independent statutory body, to do this.
"This failure was deplorable. It should not have happened; and it will cost a minimum of £2.5 billion to put it right. How much more than that depends on the number of successful claims.
"We are deferring this change for two and a half years. We are making sure that people do not lose out because they got the wrong information. We are making root and branch reforms of the DSS. In future, DSS leaflets will be subject to external audit, so that people can rely on clear and accurate information.
"The last Conservative government have to take responsibility for the mess they created. I will take responsibility for clearing it up. I commend the Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place, not least because, when dealing with this issue last year in the course of the passage of the related Bill, this House played an important role in the effort to find a solution. Indeed, the Government's variation on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in this House forms the statutory basis for what the Government are now proposing. For that reason, we are grateful to the noble Baroness.
However, I rather regret the final part of the peroration of the Statement—if, indeed, a Statement can have a peroration—which was perhaps more suited to another place than to this House. Throughout these proceedings—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is the responsibility of the Minister in this House to repeat word for word a Statement made in the other place.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I accept that entirely. However, I merely observe that it was unfortunate for the noble Baroness to be put in that position. She will know of course that we on this side of the House have accepted throughout the proceedings that this was a piece of maladministration by the previous government which was then continued or perpetuated by the present Government. The fact that that is so is a responsibility for both governments. Indeed, it is deeply regrettable and we all understand that that is the case.
It is now important to find the right solution. Certainly, we on these Benches welcome what has been proposed to prevent a recurrence of what must be perhaps the worst example of maladministration that has ever taken place. I suspect that it will prove to be the most expensive.
I should perhaps mention one other point; that is, that there has been a plethora of press comment on this topic over the past two days. It does not bear precise relationship to what the noble Baroness read out. It would not appear to be a leak. But it looks like a classic Treasury case of softening up what is to come by saying that everything is going to be absolutely awful and then what actually happens is rather less. Perhaps the Minister will give the House an assurance that none of those stories originated from either her department or the Treasury.
We are helped in these matters by the reports of the NAO and the ombudsman. I want to ask questions about both of those. I am surprised that the ombudsman's report has taken so long. It would have been helpful to have had it much earlier in our proceedings. I do not understand why it was necessary for the ombudsman to take from March 1999 to March 2000 to produce this document. However, he makes a number of points which are helpful.
Similarly, the National Audit Office report is helpful. But the timing seems rather odd. At page 8 of the NAO report it says that the ombudsman reported his findings to Parliament in March 2000. But the

1613
report was only authorised to be printed today. Later, at paragraph 2.19, it states that in March 2000 the Secretary of State for Social Security "announced" a government decision to set up a preserved rights scheme, and then goes into great detail. It seems odd to have the three reports published simultaneously and yet for one to include information which was not available at the time the report was printed. Perhaps the noble Baroness can give us some indication of how that comes about.
I turn to the two crucial points made in the ombudsman's report. I apologise, in the light of the earlier exchanges in the House, for reading a lengthy paragraph from the report, but it is the best way of dealing with the matter. The ombudsman's report says, as part of a recommendation made to the Permanent Secretary,
"individuals who claim to have been misled or misdirected by information given by a department are normally expected to provide some evidence that they have been misled into acting, or failing to act, in a way that has been to their disadvantage. Only then is compensation considered. However, I questioned whether that approach was tenable in the circumstances of the complaints being referred to me. As I saw it, anyone who had read the relevant DSS leaflets [I stress 'anyone.] might reasonably claim to have been misled by them. Whatever such a person then did or did not do, it seemed to me that the burden of proof that he or she would not have acted differently had he or she not been misinformed rested on the department".
The ombudsman then continues,
"I therefore considered that, whatever the approach the department decided upon in order to make good the effects of their maladministration, it would need to be capable of providing due redress on a global, rather than an individual, basis".
The Statement the noble Baroness read out says that the Government accept the ombudsman's recommendations. That is not my understanding of what is proposed. It is not proposed that there should be a global settlement for everyone who may have been affected simply because they read the leaflets issued by the department. On the contrary, what is proposed is a system of protected rights.
We welcome the fact that the Government are proposing to delay the whole matter for two-and-a-half years because the deadline for all this is the beginning of April and the Statement, this report and the NAO report are all up against that deadline. So we welcome that deferment. But perhaps the noble Baroness can clarify one point in that regard. She says that the minimum cost of the operation would be £2.5 billion. Is that simply the cost of deferment and will the rest then be on top of it? I am not clear about that.
Despite the Statement, the Government do not appear to accept what the ombudsman says about a global settlement; on the contrary, they are proposing a protected rights scheme. That brings us to the question of the burden of proof. The paragraph I read perhaps confuses both issues, so let me turn to that question.
This issue came up clearly in the debates we had in this House on 6th July 1999 when the noble Baroness said,
1614
"There is a very real issue of proof. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked me about telephone calls. No record is kept of telephone calls, any more than a record is normally kept of conversations at the desk. Paper records arc kept for about six months. But if someone asserted that he had received that misleading advice, I suspect it may well be the case that the Government would have to prove that he had not, rather than the contrary, because there would be no evidence to counterbalance it".—[Col. 847.]
That is reflected in the ombudsman's report when he says that the burden of proof is to be on the department rather than on the individual concerned.
So we are left in a difficult position. First, it may be that someone has been misled simply because they read the leaflet, whereas the Government are now proposing, if I understand it correctly, that the individuals who feel that they have been misled and lost out as a result of that because they did not make proper pension arrangements will have to go through procedures where they say "I wrote to the department. The department gave me the wrong information" or "I telephoned the department"; and yet there is no such evidence. If there is no evidence but an assertion is made by an individual, on what basis will the department reject such applications? Clearly, this is an important issue and it is not the least bit clear either from the Statement or otherwise what the Government intend to do. It ought to be clarified at this stage.
I have one final point. The noble Baroness's reaction when this matter first arose in this House, in answer to a parliamentary Question from myself, was that she was going to take legal advice. Can she tell us what the legal position is now in the light of what the Government are now proposing? If people do not like what the Government propose, can they still take legal action?
These are technical matters. They are of deep consequence to many people. It is hoped that we can find a satisfactory solution to them. For the reasons I mentioned, it is not at all clear at the moment what the Government's solution is, let alone what the right answer is.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we too are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement on this occasion. I begin my saying that we strongly support the proposal to set up a new pensions directorate to take operational responsibilities and actions out of the Benefits Agency and to have a single dedicated body to deal with those matters. In saying that, I ask the noble Baroness whether she will confirm that benefits such as housing benefit, which goes to both pensioners and non-pensioners, will stay with the Benefits Agency.
The widows' SERPS issue was first raised in Parliament by my right honourable friend in another place, Mr. David Rendel, in November 1998. It was then debated extensively during the passage through your Lordships' House of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill in the previous Session; indeed, the last occasion on which it was debated was 8th November last year when your Lordships considered the Commons amendments. On that occasion the House accepted the revised version of an amendment

1615
originally moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who played such an effective part in raising and obtaining a solution to this issue.
That amendment gave the Government three options: first, to increase the surviving spouse's rights to a rate of more than 50 per cent where the contributor died after 5th April this year (that option has been clearly rejected by the Government); secondly, to defer the commencement of the reduction to a date after 5th April; thirdly, to provide a compensation scheme for those who can prove that they acted in reliance on incorrect advice from a government department. What the Government now propose is a combination of the last two options.
I should just point out that in the course of that debate the noble Baroness said that she was unable to announce a decision on the preferred course of action, but added that the Government would make a further announcement "soon". I have to say that it is now more than four months on, with only three weeks to go until the original changeover date, and, therefore, I find it difficult to regard that as being "soon".
We, too, welcome the deferment of the changeover for a further period of two-and-a-half years. But, after that, the Government have chosen an option which may well severely restrict the number of people who can in fact claim. I note that the National Audit Office has indicated that there is a very wide range of possibilities as to what this will cost. I certainly suspect that the number of people who can prove reliance on incorrect advice to anything like the standards that a court would require will be small. The truth of the matter is that this is not just a problem for those who asked a question and received the wrong answer.
The change in the rates of the spouse's SERPS should have been flagged up and printed in very large bold type. Both the present Government and the previous one—the latter even more so because they were responsible for a longer period—should have gone out of their way to publicise the approaching change. That publicity should have said: "You should be aware that if you die after 5th April 2000 your spouse will get only half your pension. Therefore, you need to consider taking action now to protect your spouse's income if he or she survives you".
There are probably plenty of people who did not ask the DSS about it. But if the cut in the spouse's pension had been brought to their attention, they would have done something about the situation. I recognise that an effective remedy is likely to be extremely expensive. However, I believe that it is essential to provide redress, especially for those who are now over or close to pensionable age and who are no longer able to take out a personal pension to make good the shortfall in SERPS for their spouse.
There are important recommendations in the ombudsman's report. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, drew our attention to one of them, which appears in paragraph 32. I should like to refer to paragraph 41 of the report, where the ombudsman says that his proposals,
1616
"will also need to take account of the fact that most of those misled by DSS or BA are likely as a result to have decided that no action on their part was needed, because they had been led to believe that a surviving spouse was secure in an entitlement to full inheritable SERPS. In view of that, it would be wrong to exclude from redress those who took no action: and the proposals will need to recognise that it will be difficult, and in some cases impossible, for claimants to demonstrate that they would have taken a particular course of action had they been correctly advised. The scheme should also, in my view, recognise that many people will have been misled solely by reading inaccurate leaflets, and will have received no further wrong advice, written or otherwise, from DSS or BA. They will need to be catered for in any proposals".
Therefore, can the Minister say whether the Government accept the full recommendations of the ombudsman as set out in paragraphs 32 and 41 of his excellent report?
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for the responses from both noble Lords. I especially welcome the response from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to the proposed administrative changes. I believe that they are our best assurance against such calamities happening again. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, may well be right to say that, so far as concerns government policy, this has been one of the worst and certainly one of the most expensive errors. However, I must disagree with him in one respect. I do not think that it is just a question of saying that his government were in office for 17 years and ours has been in for three—yah-boo!
The previous administration was responsible for the change in policy. If you change policy, you have an additional responsibility to ensure that those who may be affected by it know about it. That is our complaint. We are not suggesting that there was any conspiracy here. The previous administration perfectly properly and openly debated those changes through Parliament, but then failed not only to ensure that people knew about them but also continued to publicise and print leaflets suggesting the contrary. That seems to me to be a very different situation from one where a new administration comes into office and is looking at an entire waterfront of proposals—for example, the New Deal, child poverty, pension reform and the like—and then discovers a year or so into that term that errant leaflets and errant advice based on a previous government's administration are still being perpetuated.
I am glad that the noble Lord accepts responsibility for that situation. However, I believe that it is even worse than he suggested. Any government who change policies that affect the lives of so many people have a double obligation to make sure that they know about the change and, therefore, do not suffer further disadvantage—
Lord Higgins: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will also accept that the present Government cannot totally avoid responsibility either!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the contrary, my Lords. We took action as soon as the matter was brought to our attention. However, it has taken some

1617
time because we are dealing with sums of money that may well amount to many billions of pounds. As soon as we were made aware of the situation, we acted. None the less, the responsibility to act in the first place was clearly that of the government introducing the policy change. That is undeniable.
The noble Lord also asked where these stories in the press originated. I should like to assure the noble Lord that, to the best of my knowledge, none of them originated in the DSS; but, beyond that, I am simply not in a position to speculate. I can only speak for my department and say that none of these stories came from the DSS.
I turn now to the questions about paragraphs 32 and 41 of the ombudsman's report and about a global response. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, suggested that the Government's response was not "global". I disagree with him; it seems to me that we are meeting what the ombudsman is calling for. I believe that he was thinking about an individual scheme. He was worried that each individual would have to take separate action, separately argue the case and then receive separately assessed compensation, according to the degree of separate financial loss that may be calculated. No. As opposed to that, we are producing an inherited rights scheme. If anyone can show that he was misled and suffered detriment as a consequence, he will have 100 per cent protected SERPS. That seems to me to be an understanding of what is meant by a "global response"; that is to say, one that is not individually tailored, if I may put it that way, to deal with questions about individual compensation and how much individual loss has been sustained. In that sense, I believe that we are meeting the ombudsman's requirements in paragraph 32—
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness again, but this issue, together with the question of proof, is really the crux of the matter. As regards both paragraphs of the report, I find great difficulty in accepting the interpretation that the noble Baroness has put forward. However, as there is confusion, perhaps we could ask the ombudsman what he meant.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to ask the ombudsman whatever he wishes. I do not know whether the noble Lord is saying that a "global response" would be a case of simply reversing the changes and that anything short of that is not global. We are saying that anyone who was misled and did not know about the changes and who therefore suffered detriment will have his rights protected. That seems to me to be "global", as opposed to being "individually tailored". But I do not think that we can go much beyond that point. That is certainly my understanding of the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked whether the minimum cost of £2.5 billion referred to the two-and-half-year delay. The answer is yes. Both noble Lords pressed me further about the burden of proof issue. Perhaps I may refer to the very clear words of my right honourable friend in the other place. People will be
1618
required to give us information when they make a claim as to how they were misled. We will ask them questions about this when we process the claim. Where there is no documentary evidence, it will be for the department to challenge or disprove the claim. What will count as evidence in this case will be spelled out in the affirmative regulations that will be brought to the House in due course.
Finally, I believe both noble Lords asked what sort of legal action is potentially available to someone who is dissatisfied with his situation. Such a person would indeed have access to a legal remedy. He can appeal and take his case to the tribunals. I hope that I have answered the questions raised by both noble Lords.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on recognising a very difficult situation which potentially affects millions of people who are very concerned about their spouses' future financial situation if they should die first. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Rix could not be present this evening. He has undertaken a great deal of work and campaigned tirelessly on behalf of widows.
I have to declare a certain interest wearing my other hat of Age Concern, as we have also been campaigning for about 18 months. I am pleased that the Government are taking responsibility for what is a very difficult problem, a problem not of their making, in setting up this new sub-ministry to deal with pensions and pensions issues.
Deferring the whole issue for two-and-a-half years does give some breathing space, although for many people there will still be a period of great uncertainty and worries. The Government have, as I have acknowledged, a very difficult task. There are still worries about how the scheme will work in practice and whether all the individuals affected by this really dreadful situation will find that their spouses' financial position will be secure.
The Government have said that they will publicise the scheme and set up the very welcome helpline. However, experience does tell us that many people, particularly old people, do not like making claims, particularly in situations where they have to declare their personal financial situation and sustaining the onus of proof is therefore very difficult for many of them. The only way to overcome that problem would be to contact all SERPS contributors or pensioners or both.
Will the Minister give an assurance that people who did not specifically receive misleading information on an individual basis from the Benefits Agency but who assumed the situation had not changed or relied on the written leaflets which we know were incorrect will be in some way protected?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am very glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, in her place and delighted that she felt able to give such supportive remarks to our proposals. She and Age Concern, together with the noble Lord, Lord Rix—who has sent his apologies, as he would very much

1619
have wished to be here, as would many other noble Lords had they known earlier that this Statement would be made today—have been very important players in bringing this issue to the notice of this House, Parliament and Government. The noble Baroness can well take some pride in the role that she and her organisation have played in this matter.
The noble Baroness asked specifically about how we would ensure that those who were misled or who may have suffered detriment as a result will know about it. A helpline will open tomorrow and there will be advertising. One of the key areas that we will want to be discussing with the organisations, including Age Concern, is precisely how we reach all of those who may have been affected by the Government's proposals. We hope very much to draw on the expertise of the noble Baroness and her organisation in that very matter.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I too welcome the Statement. I welcome the setting up of a separate directorate and separate sub-department. Owing to the somewhat misleading stories in newspapers which have been mentioned already, will the Minister give an assurance that all the people affected by this absolutely awful scandal—the public pensions scandal to accompany the private pensions scandal in those years when the party opposite ruled the country—will be looked after and that there will not be any lingering doubt in our minds that people are paying for others' mistakes?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the change came into effect in 1986. At that point, for a year or so, correct information was circulated. In addition, some professional pension advisers knew of those changes—they had obviously followed the parliamentary proceedings and the like. We have every reason to think that they gave correct advice and the people reading those pamphlets would have had correct advice about the situation and were then in a position to make an informed choice as to what, if anything, they did about it. In my view, such people obviously have no entitlement to compensation because they are in exactly the same position as anybody else experiencing a change in the law and they have of course the full 14 years to change the circumstances.
What we are seeking to ensure is that anyone who was misled by the department and, as a result, suffered detriment should be fully and properly compensated for that failure by the department. On reflection, we thought that the best way of doing that was frankly to protect their rights to the 100 per cent SERPS as though that change had not been made. Had we gone down the other route, which was to reduce the deferral from 14 years, which we also considered, it would have been a lottery as to when someone died. We thought that this was therefore the fairer way in the circumstances, as it recognised the obligation of government to redress a wrong committed by government which was their failure to publicise the issue properly to those affected.

The Arts
7.36 p.m.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall rose to call attention to the case for promoting access to, and education and training in, the arts; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to introduce this short debate on the subject of education and the arts. I do not think that however eloquently I or any of my colleagues address this House, it is likely to be as entertaining as the spontaneous theatre we had earlier, which has unfortunately delayed a little the start of this debate. I know that arts are a Cinderella topic in many situations, but I was not expecting that we would still be here to turn into pumpkins.
However, I shall not delay matters any further but say straightaway that I am very grateful to those Members of the House on all sides who have put their names forward to speak in this debate. I look forward very much to their contributions.
When I contemplated speaking for 15 minutes, it stretched in front of me as a yawning expanse of time that I was not sure I would be able to fill. Of course, I have discovered there are many, many things that I shall not be able to say in the time allotted to me and I apologise in advance to all those people who have asked me to mention various topics which I shall not be able to mention; I very much hope that they will be picked up by others in your Lordships' House as the evening goes on.
I have spoken before in this House on the contribution that participation in arts activities can make to the general education and development of young people. Today I should like to return to the subject but also to include the education of young artists themselves, the development of new audiences, in the broadest sense, for their work, and also the ways in which their skills can be used beyond the immediately obvious areas.
I must start by declaring several interests. I am the executive director of the National Theatre, I am a trustee of NESTA—the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts—which is of course chaired by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, who is to speak later in this debate. I also serve on, or have recently left, the boards of other arts organisations, including Sheffield Theatres, the Roundhouse Trust, the Young Vic and the English Stage Company. Finally, I have to confess to having two children in training to be performers—one actor and one singer. Conventional wisdom suggests that this is a testimony to my complete failure to make any useful impact on their choice of career but I hope that, by the end of this debate, we shall have revealed that such a gloomy view is no longer appropriate.
Education and training in the arts are contributing significantly to the health and wealth of our community, which is why we ought to ensure that they are adequately resourced and occupy a proper place in our thinking about the future.
The arts are among a diminishing number of activities in which this country continues unarguably to excel. Our relatively small population consistently produces a disproportionate number of world class actors, writers, designers, musicians, dancers and visual artists together with directors and producers whose skills are universally admired. This is important for two main reasons; first, because the work these people create brings us credit. It is one of our great diplomatic assets. The Oscars will be announced in Hollywood in a couple of weeks' time. British artists will once again be in contention for many of the most prestigious awards. The Metropolitan Opera in New York has just presented "Tristan and Isolde" with a new leading couple hailed as the best for a generation. The "Isolde" was the English soprano Jane Eaglen, trained at the Royal Northern College of Music in Manchester. Three theatre productions which originated at the National Theatre, if I may be forgiven this slightly immodest example, will all open in the same week next month on Broadway.
The arts also attract people to the UK both to enjoy the end product—two-thirds of visitors to London canvassed in 1997 by MORI cited the theatre as their main reason for coming—and, less visibly but very importantly, to take advantage of the training offered by our colleges and conservatoires. The excellence of our training institutions produces artists who are admired and envied everywhere for their innovation and for their ability to work flexibly and creatively within a framework of disciplined application.
There is another reason, perhaps not yet so well documented, but increasingly important, why we should take our artists seriously. Evidence is growing that skills developed through contact with the arts have value well beyond the arts themselves. This is most obvious in the education system, where demand for the services of arts organisations both to support curriculum-based teaching and to support general learning skills now exceeds supply. It is also apparent that business is looking increasingly towards the arts for management training programmes. The Royal Shakespeare Company and the Globe Theatre, among others, now run very successful programmes of this kind. Businesses are also looking for new skills in the young people they employ—skills in communication and presentation: in short, self confidence—which can be greatly enhanced through involvement in the arts.
Demand is also growing for arts practitioners to support the training of teachers. I note that there is a huge demand for the in-service training programmes which my organisation, the Royal National Theatre, provides. That demand cannot be met by the resources we have. Artists are also to be found in rehabilitation programmes in prisons and in the provision of care for the elderly. Only last week I heard an item on Radio 4 about a dance worker in an old people's home in Bristol. The relationship that had been forged between the artist and the people whom he was teaching to Tango was clearly delightful and very productive.
Why is there this demand? Perhaps it is becoming ever more apparent that people, young and old, grow through contact with the arts. They work better
1622
together, they enjoy their lives more, they are more productive. Whether this is in the school, the workplace or the prison, it is contributing to the "lifelong learning" project to which the Government are rightly committed. I refer your Lordships to a report which I have mentioned before in the House and which I imagine will be mentioned by other noble Lords today. I refer to the report of the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education entitled All Our Futures and published last year. There is a great deal of evidence in the report as to the beneficial effect that contact with the arts has on people in education.
Some of your Lordships may have read an article in the Guardian last weekend about Glyndebourne and the Royal Opera House—those great bastions of exclusivity and privilege. Through their education departments, both companies have recently set up major projects in which they have matched the professional skills of their organisations with the enthusiasm and creativity of young people. The Glyndebourne production—a new opera written for a cast of teenagers by composer John Lunn with a libretto by Stephen Plaice—was presented at Glyndebourne a couple of weeks ago, to great acclaim, particularly for the young performers. "Separation: The Story of Bullman and the Moonsisters"—I did not see it; I wish I had—was the result of a six-month collaboration between the Royal Opera House and St Clement Danes primary school, and was shown in the new Linbury Studio at the Opera House last December. As the Guardian reported of this work:
"Every element of the production, from performing and fundraising, to scenery building, was undertaken by the 101 children in the company. Professionals from the Opera House were on hand to help, but the children were encouraged to work as independently as possible. A walk around the school would have convinced anyone that they were taking the work seriously; the two 10-year-old press officers, Jesus and Ryan, were so professional it seemed they had been doing the job for years".
Glyndebourne's opera "Zoe" involved nearly 50 Brighton teenagers—a notoriously difficult age group to engage, as we all know—both from state schools within the east Brighton education action zone and from the private sector. Katie Tearle, Glyndebourne's admirable head of education, noted the range of benefits that projects such as "Zoe" can bring, saying:
"People can get their hands dirty. They can join in the creative process, meet composers, experience the whole professional way in which Glyndebourne puts on an opera".
She went on to say:
"These are all valuable educational experiences".
I should say at this point that a significant benefit of such experience is that it builds audiences for the future. If we do not pay attention to that aspect of arts education, then the theatres, concert halls, art galleries and opera houses in which we have recently invested so much will stand empty in the future. That would be very undesirable.
It does not require a huge leap of faith to believe that young people who have been asked to write music, to perform it, to build scenery or, most challengingly, to deal with the press, will find in those experiences confidence and pride that will influence their approach

1623
to other aspects of their fives. It is no surprise to learn that self esteem, communication skills, team building abilities—qualities for which, as I have already said, employers are increasingly looking in their staff—improve through this kind of experience. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that they do. There is also evidence that arts education has an impact on learning in general, improving concentration and application in all subjects. More study is needed in this area, and researchers at the University of Durham are currently working with the National Theatre on a three-year scientific study tracking students through years three, four and five to evaluate this impact. I am also indebted to my noble friend Lord Puttnam for drawing my attention to research from the University of York which shows that the 19 specialist arts colleges, 14 of which are in relatively disadvantaged inner city areas, have shown a 10 per cent improvement over the past three years in their GCSE A to C pass rates.
But projects of the kind I have just described depend for their success upon there being professional artists willing and able to lead them. It is the expertise of these professionals that unlocks the creativity of the young people with whom they work. There are dozens of initiatives all over the UK similar to the Royal Opera House and Glyndebourne examples. I have mentioned some of them in your Lordships' House before. The artists who contribute to them are usually highly trained, highly skilled and very committed. They are also frequently overlooked and almost always underpaid. I would urge the Government to recognise the importance of professional artists in carrying forward some of their excellent thinking about lifelong learning and the importance of creativity in all aspects of our lives, and to look for ways of supporting them in developing their skills.
In this regard, I would respectfully draw the attention of my noble friend the Minister to an initiative currently underway in Holland called PodiumKunst Werk, which roughly translates as "Stage Art Employment". This independent foundation is working with the Dutch Public Employment Service to focus exclusively on the job market for the performing arts and adjoining fields in which performing artists are professionally engaged. It is the latter part of that mission which I believe we have not as yet adequately addressed in this country.
I spoke earlier about the interest business is now showing in techniques that can be learnt from the arts. The National Theatre's own programme, Theatreworks, is in regular demand from companies requiring arts-based training for a number of reasons, including the personal development of key individuals and, most frequently, the facilitation of change. Issues about the "culture" of organisations, about styles of leadership, and about adaptation to new markets, new technologies and new ways of dealing with customers, can often be addressed very successfully through training which draws on ways of working used every day in, for instance, the process of rehearsing a play. This may sound implausible, but several of our most influential management thinkers, such as Charles
1624
Handy and Benjamin Zander, now frequently look to the arts for models to exemplify the kind of practice that will be increasingly necessary in the fast-moving business world of the future where creativity is at a premium. In his book The Hungry Spirit Charles Handy says:
"The circus is one example of what business can learn from other organizations who have long experience of harnessing individual talent to common purposes. Professionalism. Projects, Passion and Pride seem to be the hallmarks of the organizations of talent. The theatre is another example, one where individuals become team members for a production with a shared interest in its success … Orchestras and jazz hands have also been cited as models for the new way of working".
Here again, the skills of the professional artist are much needed, and in growing demand.
As yet we do not know exactly how many people who originally trained as actors, musicians, painters or whatever, now use their expertise in other fields. However, we know that they are at work in schools, in the NHS, in prisons, in teacher training and in management training, and they are doing a great job—which we have not properly learned to value or even to recognise.
There is, regrettably, still a great tendency in this country to regard training for and education in the arts as at best of secondary importance and at worst frivolous and self-indulgent. We have only to listen to the kind of language routinely used to describe people who work in the arts—"luvvie", "arty-farty" to see—how easy it is to convey the message that nothing of "real" value can be derived from taking them seriously. Even I, who have led a blamelessly hardworking existence in the arts, have from time to time been aware of a mild, but palpable, hostility from some quarters to the way I earn my living. I think that it derives from the belief that my colleagues and I are in some way getting away with it—that we are being paid to have a good time while other people do the real work and bring home the bacon.
Of course, I do not imagine for a moment that anyone in your Lordships' House harbours such views, but I suspect that noble Lords know what I am talking about. The truth is that professional artists have contributed hugely to the wealth and reputation of this nation, as the achievements of my noble friend Lady Rendell—whom I am delighted to see in her place, and who is to speak later in this debate—and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber—who is not present, I am sorry to note—among many others, amply demonstrate. Their example inspires other, perhaps less exalted, talent to express itself. That brings me to my final point.
I should not like it to be thought that my interest in promoting the cause of education and training in the arts is solely related to how much value they can add to other areas of our lives. Art, of course, has value in itself. To come back to where I began, this country produces some of the finest artists in the world. Apart from those I have already mentioned, I draw your Lordships' attention to the recent success of composers such as Thomas Ades and Mark Anthony Turnage, actors such as Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes, singers such as Ian Bostridge and Amanda

1625
Roocroft, directors such as Sam Mendes and Deborah Warner, and many more who are currently at the top of their chosen professions.
These people have all benefited from the excellence of our education and training institutions and now they are the inspiration for a new generation. It is vital that we continue to invest in excellence of this kind. It represents the best in us. It also reminds us of the vast pool of talent which we have to draw upon, which we must not waste by failing adequately to support it. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made this point in his Romanes lecture in Oxford at the end of last year when he said,
"Too many young children lack the chance to learn a musical instrument, or to develop talent in other branches of the arts. Opportunities are too unevenly spread, particularly for those who have so few to start with".
Education and training in the arts is a good investment, not a luxury. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will confirm the Government's commitment to this principle. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the arts today. Her credentials for opening the debate are impeccable. She did not mention that she attended the University of York. I am pleased about that as I spend much time at present in York.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will find support from among all the speakers taking part in the debate for the case for,
"promoting access to, and education and training in, the arts".
The points I wish to make in this broadly based debate will be somewhat different from those of the noble Baroness.
This debate is really about broadening the appeal of the arts and encouraging more people to enjoy the wonderful pleasures available in museums, theatres, concert halls, sculpture parks and many other places besides. I suppose the only caveat is that that should not be achieved through any reduction in standards. The pursuit of excellence in all these areas must remain the aim. However, excellence is not always easy to define.
Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and I had the pleasure of being present at the launch of Sculpture 2000, the year of public sculpture. This is an English Heritage initiative at which the first ever guide to public sculpture was launched. It is a useful book prepared by the Public Monuments and Sculpture Association. It is all about creating greater awareness of public sculpture and where to find it. Antony Gormley spoke at the launch. He spoke particularly about his Angel of the North sculpture and made the point that when it was first produced it was vilified but has now become an accepted and enjoyed part of the landscape. He also said,
"Art is not an amenity, but a necessity".
1626
That is a particularly nice phrase and one that all of us here today would, I think, agree with. However, some noble Lords may have seen in today's papers that people have different ideas about excellence. Antony Gormley's idea of excellent sculpture is somewhat different from that of the chairman of English Heritage. Therefore, defining excellence is difficult, but, as long as this leads to healthy debate, this is surely satisfactory.
The invitation to yesterday's Sculpture 2000 launch was issued, imaginatively, both in writing and in Braille, reminding one of how tactile sculpture can be and reminding one of the fact that people with disabilities of one kind or another greatly benefit from contact with sculpture and, indeed, all the other arts. It is nice that there have been substantial improvements in dealing with people with disabilities. Wheelchair access to buildings and museums is now much improved but by no means perfect. However, wheelchair access becomes difficult where grade I listed buildings are concerned. When I was chairman of the Georgian Group dealing with planning applications, we found that there was an extremely difficult and delicate balance to be struck between creating disabled access while maintaining the integrity of grade I listed buildings.
I wish to mention the government initiative of free entry to museums by 2001. That appears to be an excellent plan. However, I am somewhat confused about where we are with this. I hope that the Minister will mention that point when he replies to the debate. We shall soon be able to visit museums here and abroad on CD-ROMs. The technological advances in these areas are extraordinary, but there is no substitute for actually seeing the real objects. Last week the All-Party Parliamentary Arts and Heritage Group visited the Courtauld Gallery. The impact of seeing works of art which one knows so tremendously well from reproductions was quite overwhelming. We all felt that the virtual reality world will never match the real world.
However, the importance of IT is, of course, enormous. There are areas where more access should be available. I refer, in particular, to the computerised statutory list of grade I and grade II listed buildings. At the moment the only people who have access to this enormously helpful resource are English Heritage and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It really should be available to the National Amenity Societies, with which I have been involved, local planning authorities, academic institutions and, in my view, the general public. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point.
I wish to touch on the lottery. I was a trustee of the Heritage Lottery Fund in its first year of operation. The results of the expenditure of lottery money are now visible all over the country. It has been of the most enormous benefit.
However, some recent developments are worrying. The addition of another good cause, the New Opportunities Fund, has watered down the amounts available for the arts and the other good causes. This

1627
new good cause covers health and education, areas that we would expect the Government to pay for. It is difficult not to conclude that the lottery is being raided by the Government.
I should like to end by mentioning an event that I am attending in Harrogate tomorrow evening which seems to cover all the points mentioned in the wording on the Order Paper for the debate. It is called JC 2000. It has enabled children to explore the meaning of the millennium—a fusion of religious education, dance, art, drama and music. More than half the primary and secondary schools in the country are participating, that is, about 5 million youngsters from 18,000 schools. Tomorrow's event is one of 12 around the country. The final event takes place in the Albert Hall later in the year.
Those children will become the audiences of, and the participators in, the arts in the future. That is a happy and comforting thought.
8 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, for giving us the opportunity to speak about promoting the arts this evening.
Recent visitor figures have confirmed that free admission to museums ensures an increase in visitors and hence encourages the greater access that the Government seek. However, there have been a number of obstacles to implementing free access to the national museums. I hope that the proposal I am about to make, which is the work of two respected bodies, will enable the Government to continue with, and reaffirm the principle of, free admission, and to overcome the difficulties thrown up in implementing it as a policy.
In October 1998, an extra £99 million was made available for museums and galleries over the next three years. Culture Secretary, Chris Smith, stated at the time:
"this will enable the Trustees of the major national institutions to introduce free access for children from next year, for pensioners the following year, and for all in 2001".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/98; WA 197.]
In December 1998, the DCMS set aside a £30 million reserve for the final year.
More recently, as the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, stated, a tone of caution has entered into what was once a clear-cut aim. In January of this year, Chris Smith stated:
"Children have already gone free, pensioners will be going free from April and we will be able to extend that further in the next year".
Why then does he no longer talk about free admission for all?
There seem to be two reasons. First, there is a dispute over whether the £30 million is enough to offset the abolition of the national museums' admission charges; the second reason is the VAT problem. The latter has been exacerbated by the large number of lottery-funded major building projects. I shall explain.
1628
Under current legislation, a museum that charges admission is considered a business and can recover VAT on associated expenditure. Museums that do not charge are not considered businesses—with the exception of some activities, such as special exhibitions with entry fees—and therefore cannot claim back VAT on major building projects. The prospect of no longer being able to claim back VAT stops many charging museums from even considering dropping admission fees. Enormous amounts of time and energy have been expended on this problem which could otherwise have been spent on useful projects, from touring exhibitions to education programmes.
Such a situation is directly at odds with the Government's policy of achieving greater access to the national collections. It has been a major obstacle for charging and non-charging museums and galleries alike, which have been forced to grapple with torturous decisions as to whether to make themselves liable for greater costs for the sake of a firmly held principle.
This anomaly causes further uncertainties. First, museums with major capital projects, such as the Tate Gallery and the British Museum, will find it increasingly difficult to avoid introducing entry charges. Secondly, Customs and Excise has declared that it is unhappy with the present partial recovery regime, whereby museums and galleries offer some free admissions—for example, to children and pensioners—but otherwise charge. This means that the future of free entry even for children and pensioners is under threat.
When pressed to resolve the VAT question, the Government have always stated that European legislation on VAT taxation and harmonisation issues prevents them tackling the anomalies as they stand. None the less, there have been extensive discussions and various options have been considered.
In the past six months, on the recommendation of the DCMS, the National Art Collections Fund and the Charities Tax Reform Group have got together to look at ways of sorting out these problems. They have come up with what I consider a simple, ingenious and inexpensive solution. They propose adding an amendment to Section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to include central government sponsored national museums and galleries.
Put at its most basic, Section 33 is designed to prevent government funds being used to pay tax. Among the list of bodies to which it applies are local authorities, the BBC and ITN News, which can all recover tax related to their non-business activities. National museums and galleries funded by central government qualify by the same rationale. The proposal was submitted to the DCMS in January of this year.
In addition, national museums are no longer autonomous in the way that they used to be. Tough funding agreements and exacting public accountability ensure that, like the BBC, they are in effect public service organisations.

1629
What is so neat about this solution is that it is definitive. Moreover, it will not require primary legislation as the Treasury has the power to add to the list of those eligible for the Act by order. Thus, at a blow, the conflict between the Government's taxation policy and their cultural policy would be eliminated.
Because the only money involved would be the cost to the Treasury of refunding VAT to the non-charging museums, this scheme would not be expensive. In the case of the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the British Museum and the National Portrait Gallery, the annual total would be approximately £3.1 million, based on current calculations. With most of the large lottery-funded projects near completion, now is the time to put this proposal in place.
Furthermore, the EC recently stated that Section 33 of UK VAT law does not conflict with the European common VAT system, and that, if it were applied to the national museums, it,
"could be considered as a sort of subsidy granted to the bodies mentioned".
A challenge from Europe to a controlled amendment such as this is therefore not anticipated.
While I am aware that such a move could act as a precedent for other institutions, it would be possible to ring-fence the national museums as a special case. In other words, the arrangement is confinable and will not open doors to every charity. Local authority museums, in most cases, already reclaim VAT on capital expenses. Like the BBC or ITN, the national museums serve the whole nation; their collections are held on behalf of the public on a long-term basis; and their funding is tied to the delivery of public service objectives. The NACF paper clearly sets out the qualifying criteria. I hope that the Government will look favourably on this proposal.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, introduced the debate so well, she said that she had been accused of being paid to have a good time and getting away with it. In Parliament, that is very unlikely. Politicians who accuse someone of being paid to have a good time and getting away with it will not only be skating on very thin ice but heading towards a big hole in the centre of the pond. I think that the noble Baroness is fairly safe here.
I was attracted to this debate by the original title on the minute which referred to the "performing" arts. In my naivety, I thought that the performing arts would be very similar to sport, which is my interest. I think that they are similar, but they are different in certain ways. The loads and stresses on the body are different. For instance, an athlete uses style and form to achieve distances and speed usually; a dancer controls power and speed to achieve art and form, which is a slight inversion of the two concepts. At least that is the way it appears to me.
As I thought of the similarities—physical fitness is of course one—I found myself coming across other misconceptions about the idea of physical education
1630
being concerned only with sport. I once upbraided one of the noble Baronesses opposite for referring to "non-competitive sport"—and here I am on her patch. The idea is that sport has to be competitive, while dance is a form of physical education and is not competitive; there are activities that give rise to forms of expression excluding the element of competition. It is thus a different world. However, what does strike me as a similarity is that both activities require proper coaching—training is a more appropriate term. That should be done with consideration and should be regulated and backed up by services outside the immediate environment.
As I attempted to research this field, I discovered that most dance training, particularly in participation, is done through private or at least paid-for support. As I spoke to other people, I discovered the many different types of dance. The only other field where I discovered as many activities and accredited bodies was the martial arts sector. All those involved have qualifications, but it is very difficult to follow them up and find out what is going on.
Also, the idea that training needs to be updated surprised many of those to whom I spoke. If you come from the sports world, the idea of updating your training is almost part and parcel of being competent at your job. When talking about paid instruction, it is something that we should be looking to encourage. But that is a matter for the various sections of the internal world of dance to examine.
There is also confusion in regard to qualifications. That means that many people may not have the right type of qualification for safety's sake. As many of those people are involved in small businesses, it will be incredibly difficult to implement any change in this area. As was pointed out to me, word of mouth often guarantees that those who are competent stay. When they push someone forward for higher levels of tuition or higher levels of competitive dancing where awards are given out, usually the good instructors will be those who are part of an organisation. They will thus be recognised and it will be realised what is going on. Thus, there will be some control on them—but not always. It struck me that less competent people would possibly be driven out. But if people are driven out who do not know what they are doing, there is a possibility that people could be damaged; for example, by the inappropriate use of certain dance or warm-up techniques. A twisted knee is a twisted knee. Whether it happens from twizzling on a dance floor or from falling over on a sports pitch, it still hurts.
Therefore, I suggest that the Government should think about ensuring that all local authorities that hire out rooms at least try to make sure that the people and so on to whom they hire them have some form of accreditation. That is probably a good way forward. There is a high drop-out rate among people involved in various forms of physical activity and sport. The rate is particularly high among teenage girls and returning women. On the other hand, dance apparently has a shortage of men. I have a friend who took up Scottish country dancing because he realised that there were very few men involved in it—a message that could

1631
possibly be used in a recruitment drive! If the Government could do that, they would be helping themselves.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to pursue a developing hobby-horse of mine; namely, the idea that there should be better basic training in sports medicine or supporting medicine from the local doctor and making sure that physiotherapists are better identified than is presently the case. The term is commonly used to describe anyone who wants to call himself or herself a physiotherapist or a sports therapist—there are those who are dance therapists but describe themselves as both dance and sports therapists. I refer to people who are not properly trained, who have not taken the recognised examination at degree level and then received practical training afterwards. I realise that this is not the Minister's responsibility; however, perhaps he will carry the message to those in charge that tighter regulation of such people and increased medical training would be a good idea to encourage people to get the benefit out of dance and dance-related forms of activity. If they can do it safely and know that if something goes wrong they can be treated and return to it, they will remain involved. Those who take up dancing eventually receive some injuries. It is a sad fact that merely by walking you will eventually stub your toe or twist an ankle. Therefore, I hope that the approach I have suggested can be taken forward.
In conclusion, when it comes to the arts, the more I have researched, the more I have realised that I must tread very carefully before volunteering to speak just outside my field again.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington. As a fellow member of the House of Lords Rugby Team, I am very impressed with his knowledge of dance. I am sorry that we shall not hear from the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Jenkins of Putney, but I suppose that for a debate that was due to begin at 5.30, we are running slightly late.
It was just under two years ago that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, introduced a similar debate. In her reply, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, stressed the importance that the Government place on access to and education ill the arts and pledged support for students. She repeated the Labour Party manifesto commitment to,
"review the scale and quality of all courses which serve our cultural industries and to identify ways in which existing budgets can he spent more effectively to achieve higher quality, better targeted training".
In his preface to the Labour Party's Strategy for a Cultural Policy, the Prime Minister said,
"the arts and cultural industries help define who we are as a nation. They enrich our quality of life and create a thriving society. They have enormous economic benefits and bring enjoyment to millions and for far too long arts and culture have stood outside the mainstream, their potential unrecognised in Government. It has to change and under Labour it will".
1632
As I said then, it has changed—but not in the way that was expected. The Secretary of State for Education announced that arts and music would no longer have a place in the primary school curriculum and that there should be more time for numeracy and literacy. I reminded your Lordships of the importance of the fourth R—namely, rhythm—which has been highlighted in research by several countries, showing that young people who are taught music in schools have increased memory and reasoning capacity, improvements in participatory and time management skills and eloquence.
Rhythm leads me to jazz. I must declare an interest as co-chairman of the Parliamentary Jazz Group and as an average performer on the trumpet. In November 1996, the Arts Council published its jazz policy, recognising the importance of this art form and its inadequate profile in the UK. It said:
"In the last 30 years, many British Jazz musicians have established themselves as original voices within the global evolution of jazz. Their work is well documented and the stature of their achievements acknowledged by their colleagues and audiences abroad. However, there has been insufficient opportunity in this country for this important contribution to world music to be fully recognised by audiences and for the work to be adequately profiled in Britain".
Jazz is a major contributor to the arts throughout the world. All other art forms have been historically patronised. It is right that that should happen—but jazz deserves to be and must also be included. Very few major cities in this country do not have an active jazz scene—it would be even greater if the Government could proceed with changes to the regulations affecting public entertainment licences. The Parliamentary Jazz Group has been lobbying successive Arts Ministers to do away with the two-in-a-bar rule for many years. In the debate on jazz on 15th February in another place, the Secretary of State said that he was,
"actively reviewing the constraints that the licensing system places on musical performance in such venues, and I hope that in due course we shall be able to introduce deregulatory measures to assist the broad picture".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/2/00; col. 190WH.]
Perhaps it is a little early to ask for a progress report, but I hope that the Minister will remind his right honourable friend of the importance of this change and at the same time consider the venues that are licensed and pay heavily for that licence.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—whom I thank for this opportunity to discuss jazz—will be surprised, I expect, to hear that jazz and opera audiences are very similar. About 3 million people attend jazz concerts and four or five times that number admit to an interest in jazz.
Jazz Services, an organisation funded by the Arts Council, was formed to promote the growth and development of jazz. It has advocated increased public support for jazz in the UK, and in February 1996 made representations to the then National Heritage Committee, which stated:
"We do not believe that the different level of overheads in the performance of jazz and opera explains the massive discrepancy between the subsidy per member of the audience in the two forms of music".

1633
The Arts Council should look again at the funding of live jazz played by British musicians, in particular the National Youth Jazz Orchestra. This great band, which trains and encourages young people to perform jazz, has recently lost its sponsorship funding and been offered an additional £500 by the Arts Council. In the debate in the other place on 15th February the Secretary of State announced a further 24.4 per cent increase in funding in 2001–02. That will bring its funding up to £25,500, which is still derisory for an organisation that at any one time has about 200 young musicians. The principal, Bill Ashton, who has produced many world-class musicians, and Paul Eshelby, who is responsible for NYJO2, which takes on and trains school age musicians and acts as a feeder for the main orchestra, should be congratulated on being able to manage on such a low budget. I am aware that they need about £100,000 to carry out their responsibilities as they would wish.
It is not a valid argument to say that opera and classical music have proportionally much higher costs. But, sadly, this funding is in line with the reality of the situation. In 1999–2000 the Arts Council subsidised each opera seat by £12.75, each classical concert seat by £2.26 and each jazz seat—wait for it—by 25p. Since 1997 opera funding has increased by 52p per head and jazz funding has fallen by 4p.
In February of this year Arts Council News reported that the Welsh National Opera was to receive stabilisation funding and grants in excess of £4.5 million in 2001 and an extra £200,000 in 2002. This is extraordinary when taken with the grant by the Arts Council of Wales of over £2.5 million in 1997–98. As it appears that the Arts Council of England is keeping the Welsh National Opera afloat, perhaps the Minister is able to say whether he expects any funding for the Welsh Jazz Society from the same source.
In conclusion, I refer to the National Touring Programme which uses lottery funds to support the distribution of work across a broad range and scale of arts disciplines to audiences in England. The Arts Council has made an initial commitment to the programme for two years which encourages dynamic relationships between artists and producers, venues and promoters and audiences. It encourages new networks and the commissioning of new works and explores new ways to present work from a diversity of sources and cultural backgrounds. The National Touring Programme is for awards over £5,000. Effectively, this rules out much of the touring activity that the old scheme used to support, as many smaller bands would not while touring reach the £5,000 target. It seems incongruous that a big influx of funding means that the least well off artists are cut off from a vital source of funds. I hope that the Arts Council will have another look at this.
Two years ago the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, chided me for not playing my trumpet during the debate. I had made plans for a performance in case I did not survive the electoral process. It would have entailed leaving the Chamber with an appropriate jazz classic by way of protest. But I am still
1634
here. It would perhaps be unfair to Black Rod to force him to decide what to do if I produced my trumpet this evening.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, was the noble Lord intending to play "When the Saints go Marching out"?
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, certainly that was one of the tunes that I had in mind. However, I shall watch the funding situation and consider whether in the future I shall achieve more publicity for jazz by playing a chorus or two of "Nobody Loves you when you're Down and Out" or "Nice Work if you can get it".
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Bendell of Babergh: My Lords, I too begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall on instituting this useful and interesting debate and on her excellent and accomplished opening. It is commonly held that it is impossible to teach anyone to become a writer, but it is, surely, impossible to teach anyone to become a professional in the arts if talent, or at least inclination, is not there in the first place. As one who has taught a writing course and who receives letters almost daily from aspiring writers, I am aware just how present is that inclination in a large number of people.
Various creative writing MA courses are on offer. That of the University of East Anglia is the best-known and has been the training ground for writers who include Kazuo Ishiguro and Ian McEwen. The course is now led by the Poet Laureate, Andrew Motion. In his lecture to the Royal Society of Arts on 9th March of this year, he made a plea for funding. Creative writing MA students are at present ineligible for funding. He has asked the Department for Education to look at the situation and has called this lack of support unfair.
Government funding for the arts will be higher this year than it has been at any time for nine years. Under the Arts for Everyone and Arts for Everyone Express pilot schemes, literature made a number of successful applications to the National Lottery, totalling £3 million out of an overall £49 million. For all that, sadly, there is still insufficient support for literature and writers. Perhaps I may quote at greater length from Andrew Motion's lecture:
"It is the fate of literature always to show up very faintly during discussions about arts funding. And the reason is a simple one. It isn't that nobody cares about literature, or that nobody is employed in its creation and promotion. On the contrary. Our literature is one of the things we mention first when we consider matters of national self-definition, and there are thousands of people involved in it—writers of course but also readers, library-goers, festival visitors and so on, making sure that it continually finds new ways of becoming a central part of civic life".
He went on to say that we should remember too that literature underpins all the art forms. Think of theatre without playwrights, opera without librettists and television, radio and film without scriptwriters. He said:

1635
"English National Opera recently premiered Anthony Turnagc's opera 'The Silver Tassie', a poem by Robert Burns, a play by Sean O'Casey: and now a libretto by Amanda Holden. At every turn the writer".
It is not that nobody cares about literature but simply that literature is cheap and is the poor relation in the family of the arts. Is it too much to hope that in future things will change and that literature's contribution to all the arts will be recognised and rewarded?
The Poetry Society is a national organisation which offers training through poetry workshops and an initiative called Poetry Places which funds poets to work in supermarkets. zoos and health centres, among other places. Its aim is neither to discover new poets nor to trivialise poetry but to bring it into people's lives and to show them that it is for the many, not the privileged few.
Probably the best example of training for writers in this country is the Arvon Foundation. Arvon is a regularly funded client of the Arts Council and attracts about 1,000 students annually to its weekly residential courses, which are of two kinds: open courses that are available to all on a first-come-first-served basis and closed courses which are dedicated to students, teachers and special interest groups. The total number of courses is 72, of which 20 are closed courses, and each is run by two professional authors. In 2000–01 Arvon will receive from the Arts Council £123,600, rising to £127,300 in 2001–02. Although widely recognised as the leading training ground for emergent writers, Arvon places equal emphasis on its drive to encourage good reading. As the Literature Director of the Arts Council put it,
"Not everyone will leave an Arvon course a professional writer but it would be highly unusual not to leave as a better reader".
This brings me to those innumerable writers who are not, and never will he, professionals. Art as a hobby for the writer is probably only equalled by art as a hobby for the painter. Samuel Johnson gave the opinion, which would be shared by few, that,
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money".
As one who has been a professional writer for nearly 40 years, I would not advise anyone to enter writing with the aim of making money. Few succeed in living by writing. Nor should fame be,
"the spur that the clear spirit doth raise",
but, rather, a burning desire to write. Amateurs derive enormous pleasure from the act of trying to write and the stretching of their imagination. This is even more true of those who have regularly attended writing courses and learnt something of the craft which will provide them with endless intellectual stimulus.
We should not take that narrow view of art and literature—or anything else—which holds that only those who can earn their livelihood from them should be eligible for access to them. Writing is the least costly of all the arts to practise, the necessary materials being basically only sheets of paper and a pen. or at any rate a word processor. The pleasure and entertainment that it brings to those who strive to achieve writing success,
1636
if only the kind that is satisfying to themselves, is immeasurable and should be encouraged in every possible way, including the financial.
8.29 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, first, I am grateful to my noble friend and mentor Lady Rendell for extracting me from the Bishops Bench so that I may speak. I am grateful too to my noble friend Lady McIntosh for introducing the debate and for speaking so eloquently and passionately. I do not speak as a producer of art, a professional performer, or even an outreach performer, but as an avid consumer of arts of many kinds. I shall focus my remarks on a limited sphere; namely, the importance of the arts in education for young people. In particular I shall discuss the arts in the new national curriculum framework for schools and give examples from outreach programmes for young people.
The arts are keenly embraced by young people from an early age if they are given an opportunity to explore them. The arts open the minds and imaginations of young people of all abilities. Some form of the arts can be accessible to children who may reject other aspects of schooling. I remember teaching children in an inner city school whose lives and behaviour could have been desperate had it not been for a particular talent in, for example, dance or music.
Performing in the arts trains qualities essential in general education and for life—qualities such as self-discipline and team work. Performing in an aspect of the arts can raise self-esteem and confidence. Our National Youth Theatre, opera and orchestras are inspiring examples of young people's enthusiasm and commitment. Importantly, involvement in the arts while very young not only cultivates performance talent but creates an audience base for the future, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh said. While some people may not be talented in the arts, they can be encouraged to enjoy the arts and to come to them with discernment.
I want to consider, first, how the new national curriculum framework for primary and secondary schools will contribute to education in the arts. I am not here discussing specialist schools for the arts, of which there is a growing number, but generalist maintained schools.
At key stages 1 and 2, the primary school age range, it is stated that children should have an entitlement to develop knowledge, skills and attitudes in subjects including the arts, and be expected to reach certain standards. The first enthusiasm and critical faculties are developed at a young age.
I can give only one or two examples here lifted from the curriculum frameworks for young children. In English, children are expected to learn to appreciate how speech varies, to organise what is said and take account of the needs of the listeners, to sustain concentration, to ask questions to clarify their understanding, and, in group discussion, to give reasons for their opinions and actions. In drama, they are expected to use language and actions to explore

1637
and convey situations, characters and emotions and to comment constructively on a drama they have watched or taken part in. In art and design they are expected to investigate a range of materials and processes, review their work and learn about visual and tactile elements, including colour, pattern and texture, line and tone, and form and space. In music, they are expected to create musical patterns, explore, choose and organise sounds, use voices expressively by singing songs and speaking chants and rhymes, rehearse and perform with others, listen with concentration and learn about pitch, tempo, texture and silence.
As I said, that is for the youngest children. The kind of arts education promoted here is far removed from some of the ideas around when I was young, when I remember tracing shapes, and tunelessly and monotonously singing, "The British Grenadiers". I do still remember it—and perhaps we can have the chorus at the end of the debate with trumpet accompaniment!
The curriculum develops in a spiral way, encouraging more complexity and depth in performance or appreciation of the arts as the child matures. I am also aware that, outside the statutory curriculum, many enthusiastic teachers are running writing and reading clubs, producing school plays, dance events, and so on.
I am a governor in a school which has an intake from many different cultures. The schools capitalises on that and exposes children to literature, art, dance and drama from around the world. A recent Gulbenkian report, Latent Talent, reminds us that children living in limited social and economic conditions should have access to the arts. This access may come from outside the school, from organisations which encourage creative performance and critical thinking.
One such organisation—I am aware that there are many—is Opera North, based in Leeds, which runs an energetic community outreach programme. It works with students in primary and secondary schools and in further and higher education, with special needs schools and with deaf students. It carries out in-service training for teachers. Every year in the north of England it carries out around 30 projects aimed to increase access to existing opera and to devise new work. For example, in 1999 a new opera involving 90 students was performed on the stage of the Leeds Grand Theatre. The students, with help from Opera North, wrote the music and text and rehearsed and performed the piece over a five-week period.
Another exciting example was when 30 young people aged between 12 and 15—some deaf, some hearing, and of mixed ability—worked with singers to understand and explore the opera "Carmen". All then attended a sign-interpreted performance. The comments from young people attending the special projects are proof of success. Two students aged 14 from Bradford said, "You changed our perspective of opera, which was one of total boredom, into elements of compassion and commitment".
The Opera North Community and Education report for last year states:
1638
"Providing access to opera goes beyond offering cheaper ticket prices for young people; it includes the demystification of the art form itself, and full participation in the creation of meaning. [We] strive to provide opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to engage with opera in a real and significant way".
It seems to me that keys to access and education in the arts are about involving people as young as possible in ways to which they can relate and cultivating enthusiasm, making the arts exciting.
I should like the Minister to comment, first, on how progress in arts education in schools will be maintained and monitored, if that is within his brief. Secondly, what support are the Government giving to educational programmes developed by theatres, in particular in the regions outside London?
8.36 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on introducing this important subject. I agree with every word of her excellent speech and will probably largely echo it.
The case for promoting access to, and education and training in, the arts should be overwhelmingly obvious. But it is rather like being in favour of world peace. It should be a "given"; but reality is often far different. In education, in the world of work, among minorities of all kinds, and in deprived areas of this country, the arts are seen at best as peripheral and of secondary importance, or as an optional extra. There is often a perceived division between various traditions in the arts—classical, modern, traditional, popular and others—and those splits are often reflected and echoed in generational and social class divisions.
To take an obvious example, the perception of opera as elitist, inaccessible, expensive and an irrelevance is familiar to us all. My husband is chairman of the Scottish Arts Council. He took recently a young man, devoted to SKA music and at home in some very peculiar low dives, to his first Wagner opera. It was a great performance of "Parsifal" by Scottish Opera. The young man emerged saying that it was one of the best things he had ever been to.
Access, education and training in the arts in vastly greater amounts are not only desirable but essential if those perceptions are to be broken down. They are not only desirable but essential for the health and welfare of our society. I use three examples to argue an apparently overwhelming case referring to areas where the arts are particularly important but often inaccessible: to the disabled, the disadvantaged and those in remote communities.
First, I want to talk about my school. It is a specialist school in Scotland catering for educationally fragile children. Those children are classic under-achievers, drowning in mainstream education, who have the lowest possible perception of themselves. In my school, the arts are central to the school's ethos. Being good at music, drama, dance or art is irrelevant. The arts are a means of finding a voice; of expressing yourself and feeling good about yourself.

1639
I should like to tell your Lordships about Elizabeth. After her father had been killed by the "shining path" terrorists, she was brought to Scotland from Peru by a friend of his. She was a virtual mute and very shy. We discovered that she loved dressing up. In fact, it was on the stage that she found her voice.
The first Christmas at my school we performed a nativity play and Elizabeth was the Archangel Gabriel. Towards the end, I stood beside her adoptive father who was a tough explorer and adventurer. I heard him say almost to himself, "This is wonderful". I saw tears pouring down his cheeks. That first nativity play brought all the children together as a team and helped Elizabeth to find her voice and to express herself as never before. It reached us all, including her tough father. That was achieved through drama. None of the children would have been on any kind of stage elsewhere. Suddenly they were stars shining for the benefit of us all.
My second example is very different, but it relates to another school. Dog Kennel Hill school in south London used to be a famous under-achieving, tough school. The vast majority of pupils received free dinners; above the average number had English as a second language; and bullying was rife. The police were a familiar presence at the school. The new headmistress, recognising the potential of music for her children, developed music and drama. She introduced it as a core element of her curriculum and in so doing turned her school around. The approach was totally inclusive; it was not just for those who were good at music and drama, but for everyone.
When I visited that large school during an assembly, the children sat in neat rows while six performances from different groups took place. The audience was rapt; you could have heard a pin drop. The child sitting next to me—he was quite a big boy—was almost in tears. He was clearly unhappy. I asked a member of the staff what was the matter with him. She said, "Well, the trouble is that he has been impossible all week and so we had to tell him that he couldn't perform today". That was the greatest and worst sanction that could be applied.
I was later introduced to an Arab boy called Iliass who, I was told, had special educational needs. He spoke three languages: Arabic, English and Shakespeare. Shakespeare was his first language because he had taken part in a production of "The Merchant of Venice" at the Globe. That was a wonderful experience for him.
However, that is not the end of the story because that clearly under-achieving school recently completed another Ofsted inspection. The results were glowing and it was stated that,
"overall standards were above the national average".
Not surprisingly, while other schools are dropping the arts in favour of concentrating on tests, this school has held on to the arts as one of its priorities—and it is shining.
1640
Finally, I shall give a different example from my home country of Scotland. It is a story of the Feisean movement. "Feis" in Gaelic means festival and the movement has taken off with a vengeance. It was started by a priest on the island of Barra. He was worried that his community was dying and that the young people were leaving. The Feisean movement is targeted at young people in the area who are brought together for three or four days at a time and taught traditional music, dance and storytelling by established dancers, musicians, singers and the like. That culminates in public performances. The movement has now spread to urban areas such as Bishopriggs.
That initiative illustrates how the arts can bring together communities and generations, resorting a sense of identity, self-worth and shared pride. Fragile communities, such as those West Highlands communities, have been regenerated through such artistic experiences. What could be more important than that sense of empowerment through the arts? And because it is through traditional art forms, there is a very clear sense of holding hands with our cultural past while also developing our present and future traditions.
Some research on the outcomes of the Feisean movement were recently conducted and are most interesting. Seventy-eight per cent of the respondents reported that they had developed more self-confidence; 79 per cent discovered new skills in their daily lives; 93 per cent felt more creative and able to take more risks in their lives; and 96 per cent had made more friends.
For a sense of self-worth, confidence and pleasure, the arts are vital. They can inform every aspect of our lives and should never be regarded as something apart. As a society, as a nation, and as individuals, we express ourselves most potently and creatively through the arts—and we ignore or marginalise them at our peril.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for introducing this important and entertaining debate. I also thank her for the great expertise which she brought to it in her opening remarks.
There can be no doubt that the access of young people to the performing arts and to cultural life more widely enables them to reinforce talents, skills and enthusiasms which can result in them becoming tomorrow's communicators, achievers, entrepreneurs and innovators. As a former youth theatre leader, I do not need convincing of the towering benefits of investing in access to the arts for young people. I know that my students went on to become the most communicative milkman, nursery nurse, market gardener and council worker in their town.
The skills required for tomorrow's world are, as many colleagues have said, human resource and communication skills. They will rely heavily on the creativity which training in the performing arts can bring. The benefits of the arts to the business world, as

1641
my noble friend said, have long been recognised because the arts enable perceptions to be challenged and minds to be opened. An arts-based approach can free up corporate thinking to recognise the untapped skills and talents of people in the workplace. An arts-based approach can help explore how businesses can develop their leadership skills and address their management of change within companies. It can also provide an entertaining and inspiring experience as a catalyst for action and implementation.
In order to prosper as a country, we need highly motivated people who are unafraid to look at alternative approaches to organisational and leadership development in business. That can be achieved through training in the performing arts. The security of arts in formal education has never been more important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, so eloquently said, in order to raise standards of cultural education and training in its own right and to highlight the role that the practice, enjoyment and study of cultural subjects can bring and make to raising the standards of academic achievement.
It is vital that we have high levels of cultural activity in school, starting with well-resourced pre-school children's play and moving through primary and secondary education in support of improved educational standards. It is equally important that we give young people who are to work in the theatre, creative, cultural and leisure industries—and we must remember that the creative industry is a major growth area in our economic life—the necessary skills. Organisations such as Metier do excellent work in this particular area, and I am proud to be a patron of Métier.
We must also make sure that culture fulfils its huge potential for contributing to social inclusion and the well-being of the wider community. DCMS has established a new education unit to articulate the aims and champion the contribution of cultural education and training. Its establishment has led to new initiatives, such as the £180 million of new money to preserve and extend music in schools, the £70 million from the New Opportunities Fund for the public library IT network, and the £180 million from the New Opportunities Fund for out-of-school hours activity and childcare.
We need to ensure that the work of DCMS with DfEE on the revision of the national curriculum from September 2000 leads to arts education being placed firmly at the heart of our education system for the future. These initiatives are to be welcomed and must be given as much cross-party political support as possible if the benefits of the performing arts and cultural activity generally are to be rooted in our educational system.
Recently the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport established regional cultural consortia in each of the English regions. The aims of the consortia are to bring together the cultural and creative industries in each of those regions, including tourism, sport and lottery providers, to forge links across the spectrum of cultural and creative industries and to
1642
create a common view and a common vision expressed in the delivery of a cultural strategy for each of the eight English regions by the end of this year.
Tomorrow I shall be the opening speaker at a West Midlands conference—the first of its kind—which will bring together lottery distributors as a forum and will focus on community building strategy. It will be partnership in action to open up access. As chair of the West Midlands Regional Cultural Consortium, I see one of the most important aspects of this new regional activity as being the opening up of access to the arts for those who have previously been excluded from them. We know that participation in the arts has a beneficial social impact. The arts can contribute to neighbourhood renewal, build confidence and encourage stronger community groups.
In the past, those benefits have often been overlooked both by arts providers and by those involved in area regeneration programmes. That cannot continue. In their guidance to those charged with regional cultural strategy, the Government made it clear that, while not every artist should be a social worker by another name, or that artistic excellence should take second place to community regeneration, they want the benefits of the arts to be widely spread and the pool of talent available to be as wide as possible. I express our thanks again to my noble friend Lady McIntosh for giving us all an opportunity to speak out for the soaring benefits of the arts to human achievement.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, it was the part about "education and training" in my noble friend's Motion that set me thinking about this debate. I am most grateful to her for setting me that task.
My noble friend Lady Rendell suggested that some would consider
"education and training in the arts"
to be a non sequitur. How can one train people to be creative? Moreover, is it not a waste of money to train thousands of people for professions which perhaps can absorb only hundreds? The higher education statistics tell us that in 1997–98, 25,676 students graduated from United Kingdom higher education institutions in creative art and design. We can be sure that that is far more than the number who actually work as artists, designers, actors, writers or musicians. Is that a waste? My response is a firm "no". It is money and effort well spent. I agree with the many noble Lords who said that skills acquired in the arts are transferable to other aspects of life which benefit greatly from that transfer.
So far as creativity training is concerned, my noble friend Lady Crawley is right. The explosion of courses is a welcome sign that creativity is rewarded and welcomed in British life, especially in business and industry. In his report, All Our Futures, Professor Ken Robinson put it rather well:
"Many businesses are paying for courses to promote creative abilities, to teach the skills and attitudes that are now essential for economic success but which our education system is not designed to promote".

1643
People who are trained in the arts enrich our lives in many ways. Perhaps they do so in rather everyday and mundane ways; for example, the John Lewis department stores have always had a high standard of window display. I happen to know that the person in charge of that was a very promising artist who graduated from the Slade. Noble Lords who have communicated with company call centres or telephone sales offices will be impressed by the manner in which they have been addressed. The telephone operators were probably trained by a graduate of one of our leading drama schools who never made it on to the West End stage. Those things improve the quality of our lives. Perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, drills teeth in a more gentle and pleasing way thanks to his training as a jazz musician!
Neither do I believe that all the money spent on creativity courses is wasted. Of course, not everyone will be a Laurence Olivier or a David Puttnam; but creativity also means bringing fresh interpretation to familiar concepts, to familiar processes and to ordinary tasks. Creativity detects gaps in our knowledge and tries to fill them. Those incremental steps are responsible for 95 per cent of the improvements to our quality of life. The stroke of genius occurs very rarely.
Of course, many of the people on whom money has been spent will enter the creative industries and benefit our economy, especially now that we are in a digital and knowledge-based economy where there are whole new areas to be explored by people educated and trained in the arts. Again, Professor Robinson put it rather well:
"The new knowledge-based economies in particular will increasingly depend on these abilities".
Does all this education and training produce excellence? I honestly do not know. As the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, told us, excellence in the arts is very complex. It is based on imagination—one of the least tangible of assets. I believe that we must maintain the kind of environment that supports artistic endeavour and creativity because that is more likely to produce excellence.
The opposite is also true. If we encourage conformity, that is what we shall get. The more we encourage education and training in the arts, the greater the chance of producing excellence. My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney—I am sorry that he is not present—wrote a book reflecting on his years as Minister for the Arts, and expressed it rather well:
"Geniuses do not spring out of nowhere: art reflects the society that begets it".
He is right. Creativity and excellence reflect our society and spring from it. But who knows where to find excellence?
I was interested to note that the BBC—a great patron of the arts and one of our greatest artistic assets, which takes training very seriously—is currently spending £5 million on advertisements looking for new talent. It obviously thinks that new
1644
talent is out there somewhere. It is necessary to seek out creative people with the gift of excellence. There seem to be no fixed rules for training them.
Another advantage of education and training in the arts is that it promotes artistic literacy. Artistic literacy helps us to recognise creativity and excellence when they are presented to us. We all know about excellence not being recognised during the lifetime of artists. There was a time, many years ago, when the National Gallery rejected work by living artists. There was a time when Cezanne and Gauguin were called frauds; so were Debussy and Strauss. People said that they could not hear a single melody in Wagner or RimskyKorsakov. Perhaps they are saying the same sort of thing today of Harrison Birtwhistle and Chris Offili, last year's Turner Prize winner. But what shocks us today is accepted tomorrow. The noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, reminded us that this is what happened to the "Angel of the North".
Education and training in the arts makes us more able to respond to these challenges, by virtue of our artistic literacy. It also has the big advantage of helping us to bridge the gap between high art and low art. Most high art was low art at some time or another. History teaches us that.
So I think it is important to remember that history is not over; it is happening all the time. We should remember, too, that education and training in the arts is not only about acquiring skills, knowledge and information. It is also about giving students the confidence to challenge what they are learning. I suspect that those who make this challenge are the creative people who produce excellence and make history.
9.1 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I chair the British Council, which has the role of promoting Britain abroad. In recent years, we have been conducting research into perceptions of Britain in other countries. One of the resounding success stories for our nation is that we are seen as being pre-eminent in the arts. Some of our finest ambassadors for Britain are our artists, our actors, our musicians, our designers—indeed all our arts professionals.
Your Lordships will be familiar with the art exhibitions and the theatrical productions that the British Council tours abroad. What is less well known is that many creative people go from Britain, under the Council's sponsorship, to other countries to work collaboratively with artists there. They go to teach in the field of the arts and to take part in all manner of creative exchange, which greatly strengthens our reputation in those countries.
World-wide we are also recognised for the excellence that we achieve in our schools of music and drama. Many students seek places here in Britain because they want to take advantage of those opportunities. World-wide, Britain is considered, still, an exemplar in arts education and training. There has been phenomenal growth in this area over 25 years.

1645
I too thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall for the opportunity to pay tribute to our artists and arts professionals, and also to our arts educationalists. As my noble friend said, there are many ways in which arts professionals give themselves and their time to schools and colleges to assist and support them in delivering a dynamic, culturally diverse curriculum. What they provide is education through the arts as well as education in the arts. Many of our children, pupils and students are learning about history, politics and governance through the medium of the arts.
This passion and commitment from arts professionals is reciprocated by the schools and colleges. Arts-led projects in schools are frequently born out of complex creative and financial partnerships nowadays. Diverse partners—local theatres with schools, orchestras with schools, indeed even, as we have heard, our opera houses with our schools—can be brought together to ensure that educational institutions are a hub of learning, not just for the pupils and students, but for the community beyond, a community that is increasingly recognising that lifelong learning can be made a tangible reality.
The only warning I would give is that that ecology of complex partnerships is very fragile, and it needs to be nurtured by governments. It is—and I say this with sensitivity to the great pressures on government—the responsibility of government to ensure that the structures, both organisational and financial, are in place to reap the maximum benefit from this passion and commitment of the arts community and education providers.
I know that the Government recognise the importance of the arts, but, as others have said tonight, there are always competing demands for resources, and so often the arts are nudged to the back of the queue. Because of cuts in earlier decades, it has been recognised that local education authorities have more than halved the advisory posts in the arts. Advisory services are under-staffed by two-thirds in arts expertise. Only one quarter of LEAs have a full complement of full-time advisers or inspectors for each of the four main arts subjects—art, music, dance and drama. Less than half of LEAs fund schemes to put artists into schools, and only one-third support theatre in education work. Indeed, infant pupils now spend less than half the time on arts that they did 10 years ago.
So there are many challenges for us. I ask us to examine the way in which the national curriculum is organised and how schools interpret its requirements with regard to the arts and learning. Should we not be looking at the training, employment and expertise of teachers? I, like others who have spoken, also have concern about the funding of schools and the advice and support services and other resources available to them.
Like many in the House, I suspect, I often receive letters from students facing hardship, particularly students in the arts who, if they are from underprivileged families, find it very difficult to
1646
proceed with training in drama, music or dance. I am concerned too about the funding for our wonderful music and drama schools, some of which face very real pressures.
Extraordinarily innovative and radical work in arts education and training is taking place but the economies in which they operate are fragile. I chair an arts organisation here in London—the London International Festival of Theatre—and it is a wonderful arts organisation. Anyone who knows it always speaks with great enthusiasm for what it has achieved. It has pioneered an innovative education programme that places arts education initiatives not just in a local context but in a global context. It works in many of the most underprivileged parts of London. At present, it has a project in Hackney called Style of our Lives. It is extremely exciting to see the way in which it brings together children of different school ages—secondary and primary school children. It brings together the parents working around those arts initiatives. It provides an extremely imaginative access to the arts.
We have discovered that such projects not only introduce young people to the arts and improve their creative talents but they also introduce them to arts venues which may have been extremely frightening to them and which they would have said were not for the likes of them before being introduced to them through arts organisations and through their schools. The projects help them with communication skills; increased ability in planning and organising; problem-solving skills, about which we hear employers talk so frequently as being essential to modern employability; improved ability to collect, organise and analyse information; and many other talents.
I recently received a communication from the London Sinfonietta, which again was talking about the great way in which organisations and musical institutions like themselves take a pride in the role that they play for others. But it points out that it is all the other additional skills which come from arts education which are of such assistance to young people.
The arts cannot be an add-on. They are an essential part of our national sustenance. We should be creating an ethos of creativity, not a compartment of creativity within our schools and educational institutions. We talk about a creative Britain but it will continue to be a creative Britain only if we make sure that future generations are given better opportunities in the arts.
9.10 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, this has been an unusually distinguished debate. It is the first time that I have spoken in a debate in your Lordships' House when there has been absolute equality between the number of noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have spoken. That is the kind of balance that I like to see in this House.
This debate on the arts was most ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who is ideally equipped to open a debate of this kind. It is extremely appropriate that there should be so many noble

1647
Baronesses in it. A speech which I particularly liked was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. She made me wish that not only my children but I myself had had the kind of inspiration and stimulation which she gave us through the benefit of the virtuoso display of language in her speech. I was stimulated in that regard by my mother, so again it is appropriate that there are so many noble Baronesses speaking in the debate. I believe that if we are lucky, most us have our initial interest and exposure to the arts from our mothers. It is unusual for that to be from a father, but it happens from time to time. My father was interested in the arts but only in a rather limited sense.
This debate was originally on the performing arts and I prepared my remarks for a contribution about the performing arts, not least because it is one area about which I know something, or about which I did know something because I spent some years working in a theatrical agency. So I had a good deal to do with young actors and students. My responsibility was for young actors who joined the agency if we were lucky enough to secure them. My employer scoured the drama schools for suitable talent and we then had to compete with other agencies for those talented youngsters. I had no training to do that, apart from an enormous enthusiasm for the performing arts.
All of those competing against me would say the same thing. We noticed immediately at RADA or the Guildhall or LAM DA the people whom we wanted to watch. It struck me—and I still hold the view—that a talent to perform and project yourself is a talent with which you are born. But it is not enough to have that. Many people have that talent and use it in many different ways. To make a living out of that talent is an extremely difficult path to follow. I recall asking a rather technical question in the House about actors' tax anomalies and national insurance stamps. I made a plea that such anomalies should be corrected by government. A couple of days later, out of the blue I received an irate letter from someone who had picked up on the matter on television asking why I was standing up for people who were rich, pampered parasites and so on. There is a mistaken perception—on which the noble Baroness touched—about performing artists. People think only about successful and famous artists. They forget the great deal of work done by those who do not reach such high levels. We cannot all be stars.
The noble Baroness mentioned the need to encourage audiences for tomorrow. That is an important point. I am extremely concerned even about my own children and grandchildren. With all the other distractions such as the Internet, the new technologies and the new game—with which noble Lords may be familiar—called Pokêmon, which seems absolutely to transfix children between the ages of six and 10 almost 24 hours per day, how will we get them to begin to read and to appreciate the traditional arts in order that they may be the audiences of tomorrow? It is a difficult and challenging problem.
1648
I spoke in an education debate on the importance of drama teaching in schools because I had benefited from it, having been a rather recalcitrant student. I was invited by someone enthused by the debate in general—not about my contribution—to a production in a south London school. It was the first production at that school. The play was "Macbeth". It was an ambitious production full of deprived children, mostly from ethnic minority communities. I was most impressed. One would not have said that any particular child would have gone on to greater things as a professional, but the enthusiasm, involvement and imagination were extraordinary to see. That point ties in with the moving speech of my noble friend Lady Linklater who talked about her experience with the little girl.
It has been a fascinating debate. In winding up I should like to mention many of the speeches. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is not with us. He withdrew earlier because he was not feeling well. I met him at supper, which meant that I was a couple of minutes late for the opening speech of the noble Baroness, for which I apologise. I am happy to tell your Lordships that he had recovered by supper time, but of course by then it was too late. He told me that he wished to pay tribute in his speech to Viscount Esher's contribution to theatre. I wish that he had done so. Of course, had he spoken, we should not have had the balance about which I held forth earlier.
I have always marvelled at the training of drama students in this country. The drama schools have done a most extraordinary job. I used to go to see performances at the drama schools. I wondered at the limited resources available to the students and the schools and at the complexity and thoroughness of the courses. That was more than 30 years ago, I am sorry to say. But the same still applies today. There are now four major drama schools in London. RADA is still—if I may say so, not wishing to upset Mr Mandelson—the Grenadier Guards, as it were, of the drama schools. The others are LAMDA, the Central School of Speech and Drama—which was always a wonderful school—and the Guildhall. The latter two are both attached to universities.
The difficulties students face in gaining admission to those drama schools are extreme. They take only about 2 per cent of applicants to their three-year courses. That is tough. Many children are enthused by acting and, perhaps rather like the daughter of Mrs Worthington, they believe that it is a glamorous career. They soon learn that it is not once they become involved in the training. It is physically gruelling and a strain on the imagination and on one's other resources. Those who succeed and go on to lead a professional life have gone through the mill. That is why we have such excellence in this country. It is admired worldwide. Students come out of that exacting mill and entertain audiences from all over the world in our theatres, on television and on the screen—not so much on the screen, I fear, but that situation may improve, although several of our actors have had success in the English-speaking cinema in the United States.

1649
The worrying matter that I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention is the question of funding. Funding through discretionary grants was always inadequate. That situation has now improved; there is more money for the drama schools. It used to be administered by the Arts Council of England but it is now being shared with the funding councils for higher and further education.
The standards for drama schools are set by the National Council for Drama Training, which has always been stringent and demanding. That is why so few pupils are selected for and go through the system and why such demands are made of them. At leading drama schools, for example, there must be 34 to 36 hours contact work per week; that is work with teachers.
Many drama courses are available to students at training colleges, which is excellent. However, the admission to such courses is much more generous, with about 45 to 50 per cent of applicants being accepted. Those students are able to apply for grants from the same pot of money to allow them to continue their training as the students at independent schools.
The Higher Education Funding Council has gladly admitted and received the wisdom that the standards set by the council should remain; it is happy to do that. The independent schools are happy to share the pot of money in such a way, provided that the exacting standards are maintained in order to retain the excellence we have always had from our drama schools.
The Further Education Funding Council has not accepted that. It says that it sees no evidence of any qualitative difference between any kind of drama training whatever. I do not think that is right. The admissions percentages are an indication of the difference between those courses and others.
I do not want to see disappointed young people entering into drama courses, admitted too easily and thinking that they can come out and gain employment. It is rather like media studies in universities. Young people are misled because often such studies do not lead to qualifications which allow them to make a living.
I see that I have run out of time. However, that issue needs to be addressed. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to comment on such funding. I believe that what I have said would not in any way mean that any students will be deprived. However, the keeping of high standards is crucial.
9.22 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for giving us the opportunity to examine why there is a special case for promoting access to the arts and education and training in the arts. There has been general agreement around the House tonight that the answer is simply that the arts make us what we are; that must be right.
The arts and artists play a vital role in society. They not only reflect a society's culture but help to make it. They represent the greater part of what is left behind
1650
for future generations. They are not an optional extra, as many noble Lords commented tonight. The arts can bring immediate and tangible benefits to our communities, such as reduced crime, a greater sense of purpose, identity and fellowship. Pupils who engage in music or drama perform better across the whole range of academic subjects.
It is no wonder that over the centuries, especially the last one, authoritarian politicians have made a bee line for the arts. They have used the arts to promote social and cultural uniformity. As soon as any government start to talk about using the arts as a vehicle for promoting social inclusion, all of us are then at risk of treating them as therapies, not as disciplines of excellence. One must take the greatest care that the arts are seen as valuable in themselves and not just valuable if they deliver the social order and prosperity we all want. In promoting participation in the arts as something we can all do, we must not forget to promote the arts also as pursuits that only a very few people can do extremely well. That was a point I first mentioned in a debate on a similar subject brought before the House by the Earl of Clancarty.
As the report, Crossing the Line, points out, the arts sector is wide. It encompasses dance, drama, visual arts and crafts, music, literature, combined arts and new media. It involves a medley of partners from cultural venues to schools and communities, the youth service, government bodies, the private sector and the arts funding system, about which a great deal has been said in this debate. Furthermore, cultural venues themselves vary, not only from large to small, but also from touring to building-based. Regional differences of course present further contrasts. My noble friend Lord Colwyn was right to remind the House that the arts encompass jazz as well. I shall always try to remember his admonition to take note of the fourth "R", rhythm. Having danced to his music, I know that he has certainly got it!
Perhaps I may turn first to the question of access. When the Minister answered a Question recently about free admission to museums, he said that access meant a great deal more than just admission. Of course he is right. However, this Government have promoted the issue of free entry in their speeches both before and after the election. Whatever the semantics of the matter, what has happened is that they have led the public to believe that they would introduce free entry to all national galleries. Indeed, their press release of 24th July 1998 referred to universal free entry in 2001. But the closer we nudge towards 2001, the more the Government seem to shy away from fulfilling that commitment and the more the buck is passed to the trustees.
However, as has already been said in this debate, the VAT anomaly bedevils trustees' attempts to offer free entry to all. As the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has explained, the National Art Collections Fund recommends what appears to be a straightforward and comprehensive solution; namely, that Section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 should be amended. Do the Government accept that recommendation?

1651
My noble friend Lord Crathorne was right to draw attention to the importance of ensuring that disabled people are able to gain access to the arts. Here I declare an unpaid interest as patron of the Tourism for All Consortium. As my noble friend pointed out, access is not only a matter of easily getting into a building, important though that is. It also concerns layout, signage and so forth. All those elements must be appropriate. Often, it is disabled people themselves who can offer the best advice on these matters.
I should be grateful if the Minister could respond to the following questions. Are disabled people represented on all our regional cultural consortia? How many museums have a disability policy and a disability action plan? Will this become a requirement for applicants for Heritage Lottery Fund funding? Is access for disabled people being built into the new quality standards that are being developed by the Quality, Efficiency and Standards Team, QUEST? Finally, it has been reported in the press that disabled access at the new Royal Opera House is not adequate. Does the Minister have any news of progress on that matter? Because these are questions on matters of detail, I have given the Minister advance notice of them.
When we come to examine education and training in the arts, we must ensure that the needs of both the enthusiast and the professional are considered. Several noble Lords have spoken in detail on that matter in the debate. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I took note of the briefing from LAMDA. I shall not try to repeat his eloquent argument on their behalf in a timed debate, but would say simply that I endorse the points that he has put forward in support of the need for students of drama to be able to train and know exactly how their funding is arranged so that they have an opportunity to achieve excellence.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned accreditation in the world of dance. I believe that there is a loophole here whereby students of dance have, in a sense, a government department that takes responsibility for them. However, their teachers and the qualifications they hold are not officially recognised. The Imperial Society of Teachers of Dancing sent me a briefing which pointed out that they believe this puts professionally qualified teachers at a disadvantage. Can the Minister give an undertaking that he will look into this in the near future?
In January this year the Government made a somewhat belated response to the report on creativity in schools published last spring by the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education. The announcement of the Artsmark Scheme is welcome; indeed, how could I avoid welcoming it? After all, it puts into effect one of our own policy proposals published in the summer of 1996 in the policy document, Setting the Scene. That set out a comprehensive programme to promote the arts in schools. The NACCCE report makes 59 recommendations in all. How many of those do the Government intend to support and when will they be implemented?
1652
When we promote access to the arts and educational training in them, we need a flourishing arts sector as a backdrop. I was rather intrigued therefore when I read in a newspaper before Christmas a speech by Gerry Robinson, the chairman of the Arts Council, in which he said,
"The arts in England are dramatically under-funded. We don't fund them to half the degree we should and in the sharpest cases we need more than double".
Just a month after that I read the report of the Commons Public Accounts Committee which accused the Arts Council of wasting millions of pounds of public money on bungled projects. The report said that the Arts Council seems,
"all too ready to give more money to ailing projects",
and,
"reluctant to do the things that could save money by avoiding problems in the first place".
Those statements are not exactly complementary to each other, or indeed to the arts world. Which does the Minister believe to be right? Is it Gerry Robinson, the Public Accounts Committee, or both?
Tonight we have had an important debate to which I am sure we shall return. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to the fact that we came on somewhat later than expected and that we might turn into pumpkins. Perhaps I should give the noble Baroness advance warning that arts subjects can be moved to even later hours. I recall, as I am sure the Minister does without too much fondness of the subject, that at one stage we debated the New Opportunities Fund between two and three in the morning. Let us hope we do not do that again.
I am genuinely grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this debate. I hope we have the opportunity again to emphasise the fact that we must never sacrifice what this country achieves; that is, excellence in the arts.
9.32 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, in her excellent introduction to this debate, quoted the Prime Minister's Romanes Lecture in Oxford last December. I had planned—and shall not abandon my plan—to use that as an introduction to the rather complicated list of comments I should like to make in response to this wide-ranging debate.
The Prime Minister's views have been echoed in all parts of the House over the course of the past couple of hours. He described the fundamental goal of the Government in education as being,
"an education system combining diversity with excellence".
That is a good way of describing, in particular, the objectives we must have for education in the arts. He said:
"Once we have achieved excellence in basic skills, we need a proper diversity of opportunities beyond so that the aptitudes and abilities of every individual are developed to the full. Education is for life, not for jobs".

1653
The Prime Minister quoted a report from a commission in Singapore which described the need to instil qualities such as curiosity, creativity, enterprise, leadership, teamwork and perseverance, developing young people in the moral, social, physical and aesthetic domains, and said that that was our ambition too. My noble friend Lady McIntosh said very much the same thing when she talked of self-confidence.
The Prime Minister referred specifically to music and to the work that David Blunkett has been doing to promote music in our schools. He referred to the opportunities to develop talent in other branches of the arts and expressed warm appreciation of the work for the arts that is being, and can be, done in our schools.
My noble friend was very generous in her speech with her description of the work being done by the Royal Opera House and by Glyndebourne. Indeed, the children's production of "Zoe" has been visited by the Minister for the Arts, who was very impressed by it. My noble friend Lady Massey described the outreach work of Opera North, and the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, described work being done with schools in partnership with arts professionals in other parts of the country.
However, my noble friend is too modest. She did not describe the excellent access and education work that is carried out by the Royal National Theatre, which has taken on board the need to promote the widest possible access through its programming. It ensures that it has a mixture of programming that appeals to a variety of different audiences, while always maintaining high quality. It is not just about shows aimed primarily at children, such as "Peter Pan" or "Honk! The Ugly Duckling"; it is also about access for children to shows for adults. I believe that we should pay tribute to that.
If we look at the outreach work of arts organisations that are funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the funding agreements we have made with them will, in the course of the next year, be providing an additional 200,000 education sessions. That is evidence of the importance that we attach to the educational role of our leading arts organisations.
I have been briefed to talk about the creative industries as vital to our economic and social life. Of course, that is true. We should not ignore the fact that our creative industries generate revenues of £60 billion a year. They account for 1.4 million jobs; they make a contribution of over 4 per cent to the domestic economy; and they are growing at twice the national average—5 per cent as against 2.5 per cent.
However, the debate has taken the focus the other way round, and I am rather pleased about that. My noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lady Kennedy talked about the excellence and the world-wide reputation of our artists. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Kennedy described them as our ambassadors to the world, which is true. In addition to the economic importance of our creative industries, we should recognise that arts training, which is what we are
1654
talking about in particular this evening, makes people better at other things, as well as providing them with professional education in the arts.
I believe that there is some misunderstanding about government polices on education generally, as well as on education in the arts. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, seemed to think that there was no longer a place for the arts in the primary curriculum. That is very far from being the case. As the Prime Minister said, we are ensuring with our numeracy and literacy strategies that we achieve excellence in basic skills. But Ofsted says that there is little inspection evidence to support the concern, which I assume the noble Lord was expressing, that literacy and numeracy strategies are undermining standards in the arts.
Similarly, concern has been expressed that the national curriculum could be too prescriptive and could freeze out our arts education. The national curriculum is being made less prescriptive and the contribution of the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred, is being taken very seriously by the Department for Education and Employment; and, indeed, is being incorporated into the review of the national curriculum. The noble Baroness asked me specific questions about our views on that report. I should tell her that we have published our response, which I suggest she reads because it covers far more than I have time to cover this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, turned from the pressure which he has put on us previously to increase the time devoted to sport in the curriculum to say that the same thing should apply to the arts. We are under heavy pressure from all sides, but I think that a proper balance is being maintained.
A number of very valuable points were made about initial teacher training, notably by my noble friend Lady Massey who has expert knowledge in this area. She vividly described the improved teacher training in the arts compared to that which existed a number of years ago. The Teacher Training Agency is carrying out a root and branch review of the circular of requirements for courses. It is consulting extensively with teachers, trainers, colleges, LEAs, subject associations, and arts, music, dance and drama organisations on ways to ensure that the initial teacher training framework gives teachers the resources to teach the arts in schools.
Similarly, there has been some misunderstanding about what is happening in out-of-school activities. The noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, spoke as if the New Opportunities Fund is taking money away from the arts. That is doubly wrong. First, the New Opportunities Fund is additional to the original funds for the original causes and does not take money away from them at all. Secondly, it is actually putting money into, for example, supporting out-of-school-hours learning projects. Many NOF grants include projects involving arts, dance, music and media studies. These are in addition to the lottery grant made by the Arts Council for England for arts purposes. In addition, the standards fund of about £20 million will be available

1655
to include a study support element. The Government are encouraging creative partnerships between schools and other organisations by providing £2.5 million to fund innovative and inspirational out-of-hours learning projects over a two-year period from April of this year.
I turn back to the issue of partnership between artists and schools. My noble friend Lady Kennedy described that relationship as fragile. The Arts Council and the regional arts boards have published Partnerships for Learning, a guide to evaluating arts education projects, which will help them to learn from the best examples and, I hope, reduce the fragility to which she referred. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the Arts Council are preparing a document to help schools to develop an arts policy and to establish partnerships during and out of school hours. I hope that that will reassure my noble friend Lady McIntosh, who referred to that point with an example from the Netherlands.
It should be recognised that there is a new national award for schools called Artsmark which is to be a benchmark of excellence for schools to aim for and a symbol of recognition when they achieve it. My noble friend Lady Massey asked about the monitoring of arts education. Artsmark is being developed by the Government with the Arts Council, the QCA and others, to recognise, promote and disseminate good practice in the arts in schools; to encourage improvements in standards and an expansion of arts education opportunities; to raise the profile of arts education nationally within schools, and arts organisations in communities; and to encourage effective partnership. This is part of our response to the All our Futures report to which I have already referred.
Without wishing to neglect others, perhaps I may turn to the particular points to which attention has been drawn. The first is dance and drama training which was referred to by my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who quite properly paid tribute to our drama schools. The new dance and drama awards, which were announced jointly by the Department for Education and Employment and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in November 1998, provide access for up to 820—at the moment the figure is 830—talented students annually, regardless of their means, to pursue their chosen course of study. That is quite new and is of very great importance.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was worried about FE provision. In November 1999, the DfEE announced an increase in the hardship fund for FE dance and drama students from September of this year; FE student support will rise by 300 per cent, with scholarships of up to £3,000 available. I hope that will reassure my noble friend Lady Kennedy, who spoke about hardship among dance and drama students.
The Government are contributing up to £20 million a year to fund these new arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, expressed concern about the accreditation of
1656
dance teacher training. That is very largely provided by the private sector, but in most cases it is accredited by the Council for Dance Education and Training. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is putting these qualifications into the national qualifications framework.
Perhaps I may again pick out one area of which we are particularly proud. I refer to music education. In June 1999, the Prime Minister officially opened the National Foundation for Youth Music, an independent charity set up by DCMS Ministers and core-funded by £30 million of ACE lottery funds—I invite the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, to recognise that as being a contribution from the lottery to the arts—over a period of three years. Its aim is to improve opportunities for young people to access music-making. It will work in partnership in both formal and informal education in music sectors to attract and distribute funds to provide strategic advice and guidance and will act as the national advocate to raise the profile of the debate on music education. My understanding is that jazz is included in the definition of "music". I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, will know that the Arts Council for England funds jazz to the extent of about £1.5 million a year.
The work of the National Foundation for Youth Music is not the only thing. It is complemented by the improved provision by the Department for Education and Employment for LEA music services through its music standards fund, which is £150 million over three years. The second-round allocation was made in December of last year.
Before I leave particular art forms, perhaps I may turn to my noble friend Lady Rendell, who spoke with great knowledge about creative writing. The Arts Council for England provides £1.5 million a year for literature. My noble friend was concerned about student grants. She referred in particular to the creative writing course at the University of East Anglia. Student grants are available for that course, as for other postgraduate MA courses. I agree that that is not the most generous form of provision, but it is the responsibility of the Higher Education Funding Council and the universities concerned.
We should not leave the education side without talking about lifelong learning, to which my noble friend Lady McIntosh referred. The provisions in the Learning and Skills Bill for a single body and a unified youth support service is very much welcomed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We have some significant economic sectors under our wing in the shape of the creative industries, including the arts, film and broadcasting. We want to see these sectors fully engaged in the new learning and skills councils.
There is also the question of ongoing training in the arts. My noble friend Lady Crawley, as a patron of Métier, talked about that national training organisation which has a remit for the arts and entertainment industries. There is also, of course, Skillset with the same responsibilities for film and television. My noble friend Lady McIntosh also referred to the need for management skills in the arts. I

1657
would add the need for arts skills in management. Her references to Charles Handy and Ben Zander were appropriate in that context.
A number of noble Lords, particularly, of course, noble Lords from the Government Benches, have paid tribute to the increases in government funding of the arts. This applies particularly in respect of access to the arts. Funding agreements place a clear responsibility on arts bodies to deliver a clear return on our investment in that work. The New Audiences Fund, developed by the Arts Council for England, provides grants of about £5 million a year to pilot projects aimed at increasing access to the arts. One of the key aims of the New Audiences Fund is to encourage children to enjoy the arts both in participation and in visits. Both of those are essential elements.
The Gulbenkian Foundation report, Crossing the Line, was important in that respect. It described the psychological barriers which some children have to classical music and classical theatre. However, we have heard some excellent rebuttals of that in the debate this evening, which are welcome. We should pay tribute to the Hamlyn subsidised performances at the National Theatre and the Royal Opera House. The Hamlyn Weeks, which my noble friend Lord Hamlyn subsidises, are enormously successful. I wanted to say more about free tickets for schools but I think that that comes under the heading of the Gulbenkian report which we have welcomed. We have an independent scheme managed by the Learning Circuit, New Generation Audiences, which was launched last year by Chris Smith. There are many other relevant examples.
Many noble Lords have quite rightly paid tribute to the contribution which the arts can make to dealing with social exclusion, neighbourhood renewal, health, crime, employment and education. I make it clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that we do not think that this is delivering social order, any more than we think, like Goebbels, that we should reach for our guns when we hear the word "culture". However, we believe that the arts have a great deal to contribute in what is, after all, a concern of all of us, and that they allow us to invest in individuals who might otherwise be socially excluded.
I have little time in which to deal with disability policy, but I shall answer the specific points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Not all regional cultural consortia have been appointed yet. We only know of one disabled person on them, but the Government are looking sympathetically at special provision for disabled people who might become members of cultural consortia. Some 29 per cent of museums have a disability policy, but 15 out of 17 DCMS-funded museums have a disability policy. It is not a formal requirement for Heritage Lottery Fund funding, but all applications must conform to the legislation against disability discrimination. Access for disabled people is being built into the quality standards that are being developed by the department because all applications must conform to the DCMS access strategy and must provide for diversity of audiences. Disabled people cannot get into the stalls at
1658
the Royal Opera House but it has received the "two ticks" award from Margaret Hodge, the Minister for the Disabled, and there are 20 to 24 wheelchair spaces in other parts of the house.
I do not want to go over the well-worn debate about free admission to museums and galleries. The fundamental point is that access is wider than has been recognised. If I may, I shall respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on VAT when I respond to his debate on that subject in two weeks' time.
I apologise for exceeding the amount of time allowed, but I wanted to respond to as many as possible of the fascinating and well-informed points that have been made in this excellent debate.
9.54 p.m.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I have learnt a great deal from the debate. It is late and, like a good play, it needs no epilogue. I thank all noble Lords from all sides of the House who have taken part in the debate. They have contributed enormously to an important, but relatively infrequent, opportunity to vent these issues. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Lisbon Special European Council
9.55 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their objectives for the forthcoming Lisbon Special European Council.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a formal Question to mark the forthcoming Lisbon Special European Council on which Sub-Committee F, which I have the honour to chair, of the European Union Committee has prepared a very short report—partly as a way of drawing the attention of the House to the importance that the British Government and other governments place on this new European Council, and partly as an opportunity to call on Ministers to explain how they see Britain's objectives in the light of the presidency paper that we have before us.
I should like to note that this is partly a British initiative. We were told that the idea of a Special European Council had been raised first at a meeting between the British Prime Minister and his Spanish counterpart, Mr Aznar, in April 1999. The British have given very full support to the Portuguese presidency in planning this European council. It is fair to say that in this brief report my sub-committee wished to welcome this proposal, but with a number of reservations.
The Special European Council is of course part of a series of European Union initiatives on employment. I hope that, when he responds, the Minister will explain further to us that it is also part of reorienting European co-ordination of economic and employment policies in the light of the single currency, of which Britain may

1659
in time perhaps become a member. If I understand it correctly, that is also a part of the purpose of these successive European summits.
I remind the House that there was the Luxembourg special jobs summit of 1997; the subject was discussed again and included in the communiqué of the British-chaired European Council in Cardiff in 1998; and a number of these issues were raised again in the communiqué of the Cologne Council in 1999. So we are well on the way to this redefinition of using the European Union as a means of focusing attention on the need to shift economic policy.
There are two possible interpretations of what Lisbon may or may not be about. I understand from the CBI paper and the paper from the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers—which my noble colleague on the committee, Lord Tomlinson, will talk about in more detail—that the first interpretation is of an OECD-style consultation, in which heads of government meet for mutual education and consciousness raising—a kind of two-day seminar based on well-prepared papers intended to reshape the conventional wisdom of economic policy. That seems a highly desirable and very useful ongoing process.
The second interpretation—one sees a lot of this in the presidency paper—is what one may describe as the old European Community style of agreeing to detailed programmes, action plans, initiatives, new working groups, European networks and new departures of one kind or another. That is also well documented in the presidency paper.
We all recognise the need for European governments to discuss together in detail the linked economic, technical, educational and social challenges we are facing, and how far we are able to converge our national responses to these.
The presidency paper—and indeed the Prime Minister's Davos speech, which touched on many of the same issues—talked a great deal about the challenge of the information economy. The British are very proud that we have maintained a much lower unemployment rate than that of most of our partners in the European Union over the past few years and wish to persuade our European partners that greater flexibility in the labour laws is a positive social benefit, not a danger to the social fabric.
The presidency paper, and much more the ECOFIN paper, talk about the problem of maintaining public investment and research spending on fundamental scientific technological research. There are also a number of references—not, I felt, sufficiently specific—to the problems of the pensions overhang and paying for welfare provision under the conditions of a changing demographic balance across the European Union. British funding for the future pensions overhang is very different from that of a number of continental countries, which will face some real fiscal problems in the coming years.
The presidency paper also contains a number of references to the changing social and ethnic balance in the European Union and the need for more positive
1660
action on social exclusion. On another aspect, Sub-Committee F is already examining the Commission's new draft directives on anti-discrimination under Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty.
My hesitation, and that of others on the committee, can be summarised under two heads. The first is the need to avoid Anglo-Saxon complacency, or even Anglo-Saxon triumphalism; the second is the need to avoid spawning a whole shoal of new committees, working groups, European networks, programmes, initiatives, etc.
I first read the presidency paper the day after the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, had given evidence to the full European Select Committee of this House on the reform of the Commission. The strongest message he gave was that one must at all costs avoid adding to the tasks which the Commission is asked to conduct. What worries me partly about the presidency paper is that it lists a whole new raft of potential tasks for the Commission to take on.
I worry particularly about some of the new proposals for adding to European-level networks in science, technology and elsewhere. I was checking yesterday from my own experience just how many networks the European Commission supports in the field of social science. Different directorates-general of the Commission support three different networks in political and social science without proper coordination among them, and in at least one case there is duplication of a well-established network—established by British universities with our colleagues in Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and elsewhere entirely without Commission involvement.
Anglo-Saxon triumphalism is something to which British governments of all habits over the past 20 years have easily fallen prey. As the Minister knows, today's Daily Mail contains a triumphalist article by our good friend, Andrew Neil, celebrating a British success story. It states:
"It is by no means impossible that, on present trends, by the end of the decade, Britain could overtake Germany to be the third largest economy in the world".
It is wonderful stuff, but he does not mention the fact that the current figures are partly the result of an immensely and absurdly over-valued pound. That is partly why, according to the figures, we appear to have overtaken the French economy. I noted, however, a story in the Financial Times—based, I assume, on a briefing from No. 10—in which the European Union is,
"urged to match America for dynamism".
The article goes on to state that,
"Not all the benchmarks would be related to America".
There is a tendency in Britain—sometimes the Government are as prone to it as their Conservative predecessors—to believe that one travels across the Atlantic to learn but one travels across the Channel to lecture. I hope that in Lisbon the British Government will avoid that temptation. The successful and very rapid adaptation of the French and German economies currently under way is, after all, rather impressive. If one reads what one understands to be a

1661
paper by the Economic and Finance Ministers, a number of sharp criticisms are made of the British record. For example, it is remarked that public investment in Britain is not only historically low but fell by 10 per cent in 1997 alone. It is also observed that the British record in paying for fundamental research is no better than some of its continental neighbours. Dare I add that the British Government are not doing terribly well in renewing the intellectual capital in our universities as the generation of the 1960s, to which I belong, comes up to retirement and there is a failure to recruit or fund research students of sufficiently high quality to fill those university posts as we retire?
Scattered throughout the presidency paper is some painfully politically correct Blairite language. We are told that the intention is to mainstream the concerns for social inclusion, and there is reference to benchmarking, best practice and the information society. When I saw the reference to,
"a Europe-wide learning society",
I wondered why it did not say,
"a Europe-wide lifelong learning society".
Happily, as I turned the page I noted that "lifelong learning" appeared. By the time that I finished the presidency paper I was reminded of my Sunday school days and the song about the need to shine with a pure, clear light. In a sense, I thought that Europe bid us shine with a pure, clear light like a beacon economy blazing in the night, with the continent in darkness and Anglo-Saxons shining, benchmarking and adopting best practice for others to follow our line. I hope that the British Government will avoid that temptation.
I also noted in an earlier European Voice story on the preparations for this conference that an official of one government, possibly our own, had described the presidency paper as very much a Christmas tree on which every national government had hung its own particular decorations. We read, for example, that it is intended to bolster European research and development networks under the Framework programme but also under all other programmes. There is to be an e-commerce European initiative; a new action plan on employment strategy in the information society; the creation of a European area of lifelong learning; and the development of a European Research Area—perhaps the Minister can explain what that is—that is open to the world.
There are to be expanded Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci programmes with increased mobility of teachers, students and training staff. Sub-Committee F looked at the proposals for the new Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci programmes last year and was not wholly persuaded that, as then presented, they were viable; and it was certainly not persuaded that, as currently constructed, they were to Britain's advantage, since the imbalance between those wishing to study in Britain and those from Britain wishing to study elsewhere in the Community was growing.
There is also to be a European charter of basic skills and a European passport for information technologies. On page 13 of my draft of the presidency paper I see the wonderful phrase,
1662
"We propose the definition under elaboration of the policy for support of enterprises with a view to preparation for the new multi-annual plan".
I am sure that that is entirely clear to the Minister as it is to me.
The heading "Renewing the European Social Model" also sets some alarm bells ringing. It states:
"The contributions secured in this way could be used to develop a European social agenda, along lines to be defined during the French Presidency".
During the Delors presidency I was involved in a number of study groups on whether or not one can define a European social model and a European social agenda. The conclusion of most groups, including at a long weekend with M Delors, was that we cannot define a single European social model or a comprehensive European social agenda.
Reading that,
"the problem of social exclusion … requires major co-ordination at the European level",
most members of the committee considered that the principle of subsidiarity had been written into the treaty. We hope that Her Majesty's Government will insist that we talk about these matters at Community level but do not transfer detailed co-ordination to Community level on the lines suggested in some of the phrases. Those remain national responsibilities for national action with co-ordination and discussion at Community level.
I was extremely happy, therefore, to read the excellent CBI paper which referred to,
"the reform and modernisation of the labour market and social security systems",
but stated that we need,
"to be convinced that the Commission is prepared to adjust its work plans accordingly".
The paper continues:
"We are very concerned … [about] vague indications of a new social agenda to be developed under the French Presidency".
It adds that the CBI is sceptical about the effectiveness of new European networks.
Our sub-committee welcomes the forthcoming European Council with some hesitations. The report states:
"The Committee remains uncertain of the underlying rationale of the Lisbon Special European Council".
I look forward to the Minister persuading us that the British Government at least have a clear sense of what the rationale is.
10.11 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I thought that I was somewhat sceptical about the Lisbon presidency paper. However, by comparison with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, I appear to be almost euphoric.
The presidency paper contains broadly supportable objectives. It presses many of the right buttons: competitiveness; enterprise; and social cohesion. In its framework, it emphasises the flexibility on the basis of open methods of co-operation, information sharing

1663
and exchange of best practice. Against that background, I welcome the evidence of the Minister when he appeared before the noble Lord's subcommittee. He gave a clear undertaking that against that background, the EU role should not be prescriptive but enabling.
However, my rather lukewarm welcome of the presidency paper is still subject to caveat. I want the Commission, in all the present circumstances, to focus almost all its energies on the intergovernmental conference, enlargement and the necessary programmes and policies for internal reform. For the Commission to observe its own injunction of doing less and doing it better, Lisbon must not lead to a mass of new administrative burdens being placed on the Commission.
The report of the Select Committee, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, does not address the fifth section of the presidency paper—a section subtitled Macro Economic Policies for Sustainable Growth. I am glad that the report does not address it because that section of the presidency paper was somewhat woolly if one considers it in a fairly charitable light. For example, it talks about the importance of continuing,
"to monitor budgetary policies on many fronts, in particular endeavouring to … improve methods of monitoring expenditure, debt and deficit, as regards not only level but also content".
I believe that it would be a great improvement on the present circumstances if the Commission were able to do that adequately for its own budget, let alone accepting it as a responsibility for everyone else's budgets.
When I look at other parts of the injunctions in paragraph 5, I become even more worried by references to the need to,
"Improve the quality of public spending".
and when going on to examine tax policy, it specifically refers to the need to,
"Develop tax co-ordination. endeavouring to overcome problems of harmful competition as yet unresolved".
I should have thought that that was one of the issues which at previous summits we have struggled to keep off the agenda, rather than welcoming it on the agenda.
While supporting the thrust of the presidency paper, I was not fully convinced by its macro-economic policies for sustainable growth. But since the presidency paper, since Sub-Committee F met and since the report of the Select Committee was published events have moved on. On 13th March, the ECOFIN council published a separate contribution to the Special Lisbon European Council, a document which I believe is much sharper, more focused and which can make the economic aspects of the deliberation in Lisbon more meaningful.
It is a shame that the document was not available earlier, because I am convinced that Sub-Committee A would have wanted to participate in examining the preparations for the summit had it had the benefit of that ECOFIN paper. It is important that your
1664
Lordships' House should have a flavour of the ECOFIN contribution as opposed to the presidency paper.
At the beginning, it assumes that:
"efficient markets greatly reinforce the ability to invest in the human and physical capital needed for growth. They are the fundamental source of innovation and dynamism".
In the next paragraph, it states that:
"the EU needs to take advantage of its favourable growth prospects to accelerate the necessary structural reform".
In paragraph 3, it refers to the structural reform that is necessary, particularly in labour markets and in the modernisation of social security systems. It deals specifically with the need to improve human-capital formation by adjusting education systems and institutions to meet the requirements of the new economy and a society built on innovation and knowledge.
That is a radical and, I believe, substantially necessary agenda. It meets, as much as does the CBI paper to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred and which I, too, appreciated, many of the demands that industry is making, and far more so than did the original presidency paper in isolation.
The paper produced by ECOFIN reminds us in clear language that following the various summits in Cardiff, Luxembourg and Cologne, all producing their own processes,
"No new processes are needed".
It goes on to state that the co-ordination and mutual coherence of the existing procedures need to be enhanced in order to be fully effective.
So you could continue through the paper. At paragraph 7, ECOFIN reminds us that:
"Efficient financial markets contribute to growth and employment by better allocating capital and reducing its cost".
Further on, it examines the list of priority actions that are needed. I shall mention one, which appears at paragraph 9, that:
"facilitating the widest possible access to investment capital on an EU-wide basis, including for SMEs, by means of a 'single passport for issuers'",
is fundamentally necessary.
I hope that the request made by ECOFIN in its paper that it be mandated to make an urgent progress report and to set a tight timetable with firm commitments for further action is one that the Prime Minister will agree to readily when he meets with his colleagues in Lisbon.
I draw to your Lordships' attention to two other points from the ECOFIN paper. Again, it addresses one of the fundamental demands of the CBI in a way that the original presidency paper did not. In talking about risk capital the ECOFIN paper acknowledges that:
"Efficient risk capital markets play a major role in the development of innovative, high-growth SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises], the creation of new and sustainable jobs, and economic growth".

1665
Therefore, it calls specifically for the implementation of the risk capital action plan. Paragraph 12 calls on the European Union to pursue and broaden its actions in favour of small and medium-sized enterprises.
Finally, I turn to the quality of public finances. The ECOFIN paper states specifically that there should be a reorientation of government spending to the greater relative importance of expenditure in capital accumulation, both human and physical, and to the support of research and development, innovation and information communication technologies. In relation to this appeal for the reorientation of spending towards the question of capital accumulation, I believe that, as he approaches his Budget, Mr Gordon Brown is as well placed as any to respond positively to this call.
I believe that, had it been produced earlier, the ECOFIN communication would have been one on which the Select Committee would have taken evidence and would perhaps have produced a more positive response to the whole process of the Lisbon summit. As I said earlier, I am sure that Sub-Committee A would have wished to be involved in preparing a report to your Lordships' House. Tonight, I can say only that in a personal capacity ECOFIN has enhanced significantly the importance of the Lisbon summit by producing a report which I am sure will be as welcomed by the Portuguese presidency as I hope and believe that it will be, and certainly should be, by Her Majesty's Government.
10.22 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for introducing this debate. I must say that I find it difficult to resist participating in debates which he has initiated. I also welcome this opportunity to discuss the forthcoming Special European Council which will start in Lisbon in eight days' time.
We have been told and have heard this evening that the agenda, with its emphasis on economic and social renewal, concerns the promotion of economic dynamism and social justice. Those are fine words and we have heard some of them before. However, this evening I hope to discover how the Government intend to ensure that they will be translated into action which has a beneficial effect on Europe's workers, residents and citizens.
One of the key ingredients to Europe's economic success will be to build on the European Union's very real achievements, in particular, the creation of the largest single market in the world and of a potentially powerful competition policy to back it up. I hope that this will be given the priority that it deserves at the summit. The single market is the key to delivering an economic climate that stimulates growth, competitiveness and innovation.
Since the creation of the internal market, the EU has achieved far more than the elimination of internal tariff barriers. We have seen mutual recognition of standards, cuts in export bureaucracy, the abolition of hundreds of tax forms, the scrapping of border
1666
controls on goods and people's ability to live or work anywhere they wish in the European Union increasingly—indeed, virtually—without restriction.
Meanwhile, the Commission has extensive powers to act in the interests of the consumer. It can scrutinise and if necessary block anti-competitive mergers. It can outlaw cartels and abuses of dominant position. State subsidies are restricted. The Commission's strategy set out last year to build on these achievements was most welcome, particularly the planned further liberalisation of the telecommunications sector. This is a vital step in meeting the challenges set by the new knowledge economy and in particular the Internet. More needs to be done to ensure that telecommunications charges fall further so that the Internet is increasingly accessible to all.
Yet in the single market a number of major areas are still under-performing. It is little wonder that a survey by Andersen Consulting last year showed that nine out of ten executives believed that much more needed to be done to make the single market a reality. I was therefore glad to see that in its contribution to Lisbon, An Agenda for Economic and Social Renewal, the Commission recognises that these areas require urgent attention to improve the European Union's medium-term economic outlook.
The Commission has identified a number of challenges to be addressed by the summit, including the employment challenge, the skill gap and the main social challenges, including the massive costs of underemployment, poverty and social exclusion, as well as the challenges of an ageing population and its implications for Europe's welfare and pensions systems.
Those challenges coincide with the emergence of a new economy, an economy which is intrinsically global. Electronic commerce is breaking down national barriers to trade. This is already impacting on every facet of life, and it will radically transform our economies and societies. Indeed, it has already begun to do so. The Lisbon Summit is an opportunity to decide how that transformation can be managed to our advantage and how our policies should be reoriented accordingly.
It is also the time for Europe to respond to the new reality of new technology. This is the age of the small unit, the individual on the Internet, small business using e-commerce, low tax and low regulation and of the nation state exploiting the opportunities of the new global economy. The right response in Europe to these trends is to look outward, not inward. It is to decentralise, not to centralise. Lisbon is an opportunity to find ways to help European businesses to compete and to create a real Europe for consumers, to secure greater dynamism for the European economy and to increase enterprise and encourage entrepreneurs.
In the short time available, I should like to ask a number of questions about the internal market and trade policy which have been identified in the presidency paper as priorities in achieving economic reform. Much more needs to be done to liberalise trade

1667
and to complete the internal market. The main task of the European Union should now be to promote the economic performance of European businesses and the welfare of its inhabitants. Can the Minister say what action the Government will press for at the summit for a genuine internal market to be completed in all sectors of industry, including financial services and the free movement of capital, utilities, transport and electronic commerce? An end to state subsidies for airlines and a strengthening of public procurement rules, so that taxpayers can be assured of value for money and businesses can compete on a level playing field, must surely be key elements of this. Does the Minister agree with the employers' organisation, UNICE, that momentum should be re-established through the setting of a new, clear and realistic deadline of 2002 for the completion of the single market?
On competition, what action do the Government intend to press for to ensure that competition rules are enforced and that countries that still unfairly subsidise their industries with taxpayers' money are censured so that competition in Europe is fair? On these Benches we believe that competition policy responsibilities should be entrusted to a new independent competition authority at European level.
On the issue of tariffs, we support the elimination of European Union tariffs and the extension of the free trade zone across the Atlantic as a first step towards global tariff-free trade by 2020. Yet is the Minister aware that a recent Institute of International Economics report concluded that Europe's economy is currently almost as protectionist as it was 10 years ago?
Customs duties still account for a huge 14 per cent of European Union revenue. There is a 9.2 per cent tariff on pianos, 8.9 per cent on chocolate and 8 per cent on ski hoots. Those are just a few examples. The European Union's attitude to trade liberalisation in agriculture in particular has been obstructive. Substantial non-tariff barriers exist also in relation to pharmaceuticals through to broadcasting. Does the Minister agree that France's curtailment last year of the agenda of my noble friend Lord Brittan for a transatlantic market-place, which would have meant zero tariffs on industrial goods by 2010 and a free trade area also in services, has sent the free-trade agenda into reverse? What action do the Government propose to take to arrest such protectionist tendencies?
I turn now to regulation, which has already been referred to by noble Lords. From these Benches, we do not believe that the old agenda of regulation and integration is appropriate for the economy of the 21st century in which new knowledge-based industries are breaking the old regulatory mould by the very nature of their mobility.
European Union regulation is not a new development. The single market itself led to a flurry of legislation, some of which was necessary to make the concept a reality. But in recent years we have seen the advent of a whole new class of regulations. The social and employment laws are designed not to implement the single market but to create a single cost base. The
1668
result is higher costs. We know of the £2 billion cost to British business of the Working Time Directive. We know of the bureaucracy spawned by the Works Council Directive. We worry about the employment costs of extending working time rules to taxi drivers for no apparent reason. We are concerned about national works councils, which would force companies with a mere 50 workers to set up a costly consultation machinery, even if they do not cross a village boundary, let alone a national one. We are aware also of the likely effect of the proposed arts resale tax.
Those regulations are major job destroyers. With British over-zealous implementation, or gold-plating, on top, far from helping to create jobs, I believe that such laws risk destroying them.
At Lisbon, the Commission proposes that the European Union should set itself the goal of restoring full employment as the key objective of economic and social policy. The goals of full employment and the elimination of poverty are worthy and ones to which we should all aspire. Yet such words must be backed by policies anchored in reality. Otherwise, they are as empty and as transient as the breath which uttered them.
The Commission paper gives little practical indication of how those goals are to be achieved, while at the same time it sets out some expensive spending commitments. Goals may be challenging but they must also be realistic if they are to be of value.
When the Portuguese presidency calls for the development of,
"new ways of regulating the labour market",
with a,
"strengthened role for active employment policies".
and when the Government speak of putting full employment back at the heart of Europe's social agenda through a,
"cross-cutting joined up approach to policy making",
we must slice cleanly through that jargon to remember that governments do not create jobs; businesses do. The European Union's existing social challenges of unemployment, social exclusion and poverty will be compounded if obstacles are put in the way of those who create jobs.
The Minister will be aware that the Prime Minister has spoken of the creation of a whole new single market and of the extension of the single market to the Internet, to innovation, to telecoms and to venture capital. Indeed, he has said:
"Europe can't legislate for technology entrepreneurs. But we can surely get out of their way".
The Government are fond of telling us that the old Europe of red tape and regulation is long gone. I shall listen carefully to the words of the noble Lord in that context. But we have now entered a new era of radical economic reform. Yet that attitude has not always been reflected in the Government's action. Despite their manifesto commitment pledging to "cut unnecessary red tape", the British Chamber of Commerce has said very recently that,

1669
"excessive red tape is stifling the very enterprises the Government is seeking to promote".
Eurostat figures show that total hourly labour costs grew in the UK by 5 per cent in the year to the third quarter of 1999—more than in many other countries. Worryingly, it seems that while the Commission has accurately identified Europe's problems—for it acknowledges that weaknesses persist and that the,
"EU's growth rates have consistently been less than the US, unemployment remains unacceptably high and too many people are excluded from society",
and, it concludes,
"the European economy is simply not as dynamic as some of our major competitors"—
it is far from identifying solutions and it seems drawn to repeating the expensive mistakes of the past.
While we welcomed the Commission's acknowledgement that,
"regulatory costs are far too high in placing unnecessary and costly burdens on European enterprise and that a new initiative is needed to improve the regulatory environment at all levels and further co-ordinated action to cut regulatory costs and simplify the business environment'",
in the very same document there are calls for further regulation. The Commission's submission to Lisbon makes it clear that it wants to see the European Union,
"building on the values of the European social model";
it wants to see the high level group to ensure closer co-operation with member states on modernising social protection systems established on a permanent basis; and it considers that action is required at European, national, regional and local level to make,
"full use of the instruments available including regulation".
In that context, will the Minister say how the Government intend to ensure that Lisbon does indeed mark,
"a definitive turning point towards the reform agenda. retaining the values of the European social model, but changing their application radically for the modern world",
when the European Commission published a strategy paper in January stating that,
"Europe's model of intervention, working successfully on a continental scale, is a quarry from which ideas for global governance can and should be drawn"?
Does the Minister accept that that culture of regulation has resulted in one of the worst records on job creation in the developed world, helping to ensure that the United States created more jobs in one month in 1999 than France and Germany managed in the entire 1990s?
I fear that I shall give the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, a little cause for concern if I use too many American benchmarks, so I shall add but a few to the debate. While the economy in the United States has grown fast enough to create 12 million new jobs in the private sector since 1991, few such jobs were created in Europe. While unemployment in the euro-11 now stands at an indefensible 10 per cent, in the United States it is just 4 per cent. We agree that Europe must become more entrepreneurial and innovative and that jobs in the new economy will primarily be created by vibrant small and medium-sized firms.
1670
In a world of global competition, where it may take less effort to purchase goods on-line from half-way around the world than to buy them from the corner shop, it is deeply counterproductive to place obstacles in the way of Europe's businesses. In the 21st century, flexibility and diversity, rather than integration and regulation within a Union where every member state accepts the rights and responsibilities of the single market and the core elements of an open, free-trading and competitive Europe, are the watchwords for making Europe the best place in the world to do business, given the new, high-tech knowledge economy.
Our vision is of an open, outward-looking, low regulation, low tax, free trade, free enterprise and, above all, competitive Europe. Lisbon should be the time to realise that goal. It should mark a turning point in our approach to economic and social policy at European level. The summit is an opportunity to direct Europe towards the idea of international free trade, towards the enforcement of competition rules and towards a programme of deregulation. A decision to continue the regulatory approach at Lisbon will represent a huge opportunity lost, and I fear the consequences. I look forward to the Minister's assurance that that will not be the case.
10.40 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, this has been a timely and helpful debate, if somewhat short. It has been helpful because it looks ahead to the issues which the Heads of State and Government will consider in Lisbon on 23rd and 24th March. As stated by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, this council was a result of an initiative of the Prime Minister and the Spanish Prime Minister.
It seems to me that it is oriented to achieving the goals we want to see in terms of opening up markets and of greater flexibility. If that opens us up to an accusation of Anglo-Saxon triumphalism or of looking towards America to understand some of the processes, we shall take that criticism because we believe that, on the whole, these are good things to do.
The Government welcome the Special European Council on Employment, Economic Reform and Social Cohesion. The UK sees the special summit as offering the EU a major turning point in policy at Community level towards economic competitiveness, encouraging enterprise, and ensuring social cohesion.
This is the first European Council which has been exclusively devoted to issues of economic reform. That in itself reflects a major shift in the European agenda. We therefore welcome the enthusiasm and commitment with which the Portuguese presidency and the Commission have embraced this exercise and the helpful and forward-looking papers which they and the other member states have presented. It is striking how many of those reflect the same basic message on the importance of economic reform and of encouraging enterprise in making Europe globally competitive.

1671
The Government see a clear link between social inclusion and being able to find a fulfilling and rewarding job. In turn, our objective of full employment can be met only by having an efficient, competitive economy and an environment where employees and those seeking employment are given strong incentives to ensure that they have the right skills and that they keep those updated. Let no one be under any misunderstanding: we see clearly that it is businesses that create jobs, and the job of government is to create an enabling environment for that to happen. To create the right opportunities for employment for our citizens, we need companies offering innovative products and services and which are able to move quickly to meet new market conditions.
Small and medium-sized companies have many of those characteristics and have been responsible for the bulk of new jobs created in Europe over recent years. We need to ensure as governments that the EU has the right economic and regulatory environment in which small high-tech companies can flourish and provide future employment for our citizens. We need also to look at Europe in this context as a player in a global market. Globalisation makes the competitiveness of individual companies and the ingenuity and skill of their workforces even more central to the competitive survival of our economies.
The UK very much endorses the objective of the Portuguese presidency of making Europe the most dynamic, knowledge-driven economy in the world by 2010. That means benchmarking Europe's performance against the best in the world; not necessarily against the best in Europe but against the best in the whole world, and identifying where we need to do better.
We have urged our European partners—the Commission has picked up this theme strongly—to look at key areas of competitiveness and innovation as indicators of how well we are doing compared with the rest of the world. That will give us a clear and dispassionate view of where we need to focus our attention in future.
In line with the overall objective of making Europe the most dynamic economic area in the world, we are looking for some concrete outcomes from Lisbon. In response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, perhaps I may say that they deal both with the question of how we respond to the technological changes brought by e-commerce and of continuing to develop the single market. I should say, however, that the council meetings are not concerned with world trade negotiations. That is a separate issue. The issue of opening up Europe to free trade is one about which we are concerned, but that is not on the agenda for Lisbon. We in the UK have been a central player in pushing down trade barriers and tariffs in the World Trade Organisation.
Perhaps I may turn to the specific objectives we wish to secure at the Lisbon Council meeting. First, the removal of remaining barriers to the development of
1672
e-commerce in the EU. We want Internet access in Europe to be as fast and cheap as anywhere else in the world. Recent new offers for Internet access from a number of telecoms and Internet operators in the UK have been most encouraging. This objective means adopting the existing e-commerce directive by the end of this year and the Commission rapidly bringing forward the other draft directives needed to complete the legislative framework.
Secondly, to make the EU's R&D efforts—a subject that is particularly close to my heart—work to support the EU as a dynamic, knowledge-driven economy, we need to focus R&D funds into areas which need cooperation at EU level. Those are areas where we will not be able to compete against America and Japan unless we achieve the significant economies of scale necessary in certain key areas. We need to do more to allow the results of such research to reach the market quickly. This includes creating a world-class patent system with a single European patent to allow rapid commercial exploitation.
Thirdly, we must equip our citizens with the right skills to take part in the knowledge society. We are aiming to create a culture of lifelong learning, concentrating on ICT skills and making training available to at least 60 per cent of the population by 2005.
Fourthly, in order to make our companies globally competitive, we need a properly functioning single market. This not only creates a real home market of over 300 million consumers which our industries can use as a springboard to reach the global market; it also means ensuring that the vital inputs into their competitiveness, such as energy, telecommunications and financial services are delivered as competitively and as cheaply as possible. Those industries are of course also important in their own right. We seek to bring forward to 2004 liberalisation of all EU energy markets and to reduce considerably the level of distorted state aid to industry overall.
Fifthly, we are espousing a charter for small business and aim to have the charter adopted by June this year. This is aimed at creating a culture of enterprise, encouraging young people to look at becoming entrepreneurs. It aims to reduce the burden of regulation on companies and to ensure that the remaining regulation is improved. The deregulation agenda is one that the UK has pressed hard in the EU. The BEST report, adopted a little over a year ago, aimed at improving the regulatory environment for small firms, along with the SLIM initiative that seeks to simplify internal market legislation, were useful steps in this. We are further pursuing those efforts.
The charter looks at access to finance and underlines the need for better and more accessible financial instruments from the European Investment Bank and commercial venture capitalists. This should also be underpinned by creating a single European capital market, providing greater liquidity and flexibility. Above all, we need to change European attitudes to risk, rewarding responsible risk takers and not penalising for ever those who are deemed to have failed.

1673
These reforms have the overall aim of creating a dynamic economy leading to full employment. This will also require modern approaches to the social agenda, providing for flexible and dynamic labour markets with social protection and social dialogue reflecting the new economy and ensuring social inclusion. In terms of the two categories mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, it seems to me that the Council's agenda has the best features of both of those. It covers discussion of key issues and taking forward the political and economic debate. But it also has important and specific proposals—as I hope I have made clear and which we would all agree are desirable. Throughout this, a clear distinction has been made between those issues which concern the Commission and are specific and limited and those which concern nation states and are for the members to deal with themselves and are questions of exhortation rather than specific measures.
Let me point to two specific matters. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised the question of European research. Specific proposals are being put forward in relation to how we co-ordinate R&D throughout the Union, but specifically aiming it at the key areas where we need to achieve critical mass in terms of research rather than with regard to that which has been the case in the past; that is, spreading research money in the framework programmes thinly over a wide range of areas and in some senses duplicating what has been done before.
Specific programmes increasing the mobility of researchers or broad-band networks for research institutes throughout Europe are sensible and practical, and we should seek to achieve them on a European basis. We cannot be accused of triumphalism. We can be proud of what we are achieving in this country. We can argue the case for policies we want to see. We should learn from America and Europe, and benchmark ourselves against the best in the world; that is what benchmarking is all about.
We should all welcome the renewal of the European social model. It means opening the social dialogue to include a wider range of players, particularly high-tech businesses, SMEs and the unemployed. It is about increasing flexibility and adapting the model to the new world we are in.
1674
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, warned us against Anglo-Saxon triumphalism and suggested that the agenda is backward-looking. We can have only one of those as a criticism. If we have both, it makes a slight hash of the matter.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that the ECOFIN paper contains a lot of sensible and practical policies; promotion of the integration of the Community's financial markets; wider access to capital, especially for SMEs; promoting risk capital; and the reorientation of public spending to increase the relative importance of capital accumulation and to support R&D innovation and ICT. They must all be aspects we should welcome.
Before I conclude, I should like to make one point about professional investment, a topic raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. The strength of business investment last year exceeded Budget forecasts and it continues at record highs, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP. The UK's investment as a percentage of GDP is lower than the OECD average, although it is catching up fast under the current Government. The UK Government hope that Lisbon will establish the clear priority we need to give investment for our economies to thrive in the future.
The presidency will, as usual, produce conclusions from the European Council which we hope will reflect many of the points I have just listed. We have been encouraged by contacts with the presidency and the content of both their and the Commission's inputs. Many other member states adopted similar priorities.
This summit is ultimately about making Europe the best place in the world to do business. We have therefore been working with the business community to ensure that we reflect its priorities for Lisbon. We hope that its voice will be heard by other leaders in Lisbon. UNICE, the European business federation, is organising a meeting just before the summit to make an input into discussion there.
I am grateful for a helpful and perceptive debate on these issues and hope that the Lisbon meeting will deliver the changes in attitude and in the way in which we approach economic policy and employment which are needed to make Europe globally competitive.
House adjourned at six minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Welsh National Assembly: "The Point" Viewing Figures
  Welsh National Assembly: "The Point" Viewing Figures
  Bute House, Edinburgh
  Bute House, Edinburgh
  Mergers: Disclosure of Advice
  Mergers: Disclosure of Advice
  Territorial Employment Pacts and Ethnic Minority Targets
  Territorial Employment Pacts and Ethnic Minority Targets
  Hinkley Point "A" Nuclear Power Station
  Hinkley Point "A" Nuclear Power Station
  Nuclear Waste Storage
  Nuclear Waste Storage
  EC Treaties: Breaches by Member States
  EC Treaties: Breaches by Member States
  Kosovo: Mobile Telephone Contract
  Kosovo: Mobile Telephone Contract
  Mitrovica: Disturbances
  Mitrovica: Disturbances
  Chechnya: Human Rights Abuses
  Chechnya: Human Rights Abuses
  Kosovo: Destruction of Religious Buildings
  Kosovo: Destruction of Religious Buildings
  Mrs Diana Mawdsley
  Mrs Diana Mawdsley
  Mr James Mawdsley
  Mr James Mawdsley
  Yugoslavia: EU Sanctions Regime
  Yugoslavia: EU Sanctions Regime
  Asylum Seeking Children: Kent County Council Costs
  Asylum Seeking Children: Kent County Council Costs
  NHS Trusts: Transfer of Assets
  NHS Trusts: Transfer of Assets
  NHS Dental Service
  NHS Dental Service
  Water Fluoridation: Review
  Water Fluoridation: Review
  NHS Wheelchair Provision
  NHS Wheelchair Provision
  Podiatric Surgery
  Podiatric Surgery
  Chiropodists and Podiatrists: Prescribing Rights
  Chiropodists and Podiatrists: Prescribing Rights
  Carers' Needs Assessment
  Carers' Needs Assessment
  NHS Bed Occupancy
  NHS Bed Occupancy
  Business Sponsorship and the Inland Revenue
  Business Sponsorship and the Inland Revenue
  Orissa: Cyclone Relief
  Orissa: Cyclone Relief