Sitting of 29 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 5 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Eastern Europe
    Mr. Nigel Evans: What financial and technical assistance she gives eastern European Governments to develop their economies. [115429]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Over the past five years, bilateral financial and technical assistance to eastern Europe has averaged around £80 million a year. It is channelled not only directly to central Governments, but to local governments and to non-governmental and civil society organisations. In addition however, the UK has provided assistance through our contributions to multilateral institutions, including our share of EC commitments, which averaged around £200 million a year.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that response, and it seems that Britain is doing its bit at least. However, Britain is not alone in suffering from the growing influx of economic migrants from eastern Europe, especially from Romania. I understand that Holland, Belgium and a number of other European Union countries are suffering in the same way. What meetings has the Minister had with European Union colleagues to try to persuade them to ensure that the money that we put in is being spent effectively, economically and technically, to ensure that those countries' economies can improve? That improvement would help them, but it would also help other countries that want to stem the economic tide.
    Mr. Foulkes: Not only have we discussed the matter with our European partners, but I had the opportunity to discuss it with a Romanian Minister who visited us two weeks ago. I discussed with the Romas the type of help
    324
    that we are giving to improve the position in that country. That help makes it less likely that they will seek to go elsewhere.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: Does my hon. Friend share my experience, gained from being co-chair of the Future of Europe Trust, that one of the most urgent priorities for eastern Europe is the extension of civil rights and the rebuilding of civil society? May I urge his Department to give special priority to strengthening non-governmental organisations and other bodies in those countries?
    Mr. Foulkes: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Future of Europe Trust is doing a good job, as is the Westminster Foundation and a number of other organisations. Many of our resources are channelled into the sort of work that my hon. Friend has suggested. However, we will certainly consider any further assistance that we can give in that direction.

    AIDS (Africa)
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What assessment she has made of the extent of the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. [115430]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): AIDS is now the biggest killer in Africa: 14 million Africans have died as a result of the infection, and nearly 4 million died last year alone. In the worst-affected countries, one in four adults is infected. The impacts are reversing development gains made over the past 30 years. Life expectancy is dropping. Gains in child survival are being reversed, and the limited pool of skilled workers is being decimated. By the end of this year, 10.4 million African children will have lost their mothers, or both parents, to AIDS.
    The Government are committed to intensifying our work, alongside UNAIDS in Africa. We are spending £20 million a year, and our commitment will grow.
    Mr. Robathan: I pay tribute to the Department's work in this matter. The world focused on the tragic floods in Mozambique, which killed some 5,000 people, but over the next five years some 4 million Mozambicans will die from AIDS, as that is the approximate number of people there who are infected with HIV. The problem is so enormous that it dwarfs all the others facing sub-Saharan Africa. Unless the HIV-AIDS problem is sorted out, there can be no further development in the area, so will the Secretary of State review her priorities for aid there?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the problem is worse than he described, as 4 million people died of AIDS in Africa last year. This is an incredible crisis and a major priority for the Department. The good news is that such Governments as those in Senegal and Uganda, who have given it priority and who have mounted really honest and open campaigns, have stemmed the tide when it comes to the growth of the infection. We must get other countries to adopt the same courageous leadership, backed up by the international community. Half the cases of new infection involved young people, and more than half of those were young

    325
    women, many of whom did not consent to sexual relations. They must be given the strength to be able to refuse and protect themselves.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns about some recent statements by South Africa's President Mbeki and the impact that they might have on prevention work and on people's access to treatments in that country? Will she take every opportunity to raise the matter with the Government of South Africa?
    Will my right hon. Friend also try to persuade the pharmaceutical companies that they should do what they can to ensure that treatments are available that are within the budgets of South Africa and other African countries? Last year, the companies tried to prevent the manufacture of generic drugs, which gave the impression that they were worried only about profit and certainly contributed to the suspicions aired by President Mbeki.
    Clare Short: I have read the reports of what President Mbeki is supposed to have said, and they are rather worrying. However, I met the South African Health Minister last week in The Hague, and she said that the reports did not accurately portray her Government's position. As my hon. Friend will know, the infection is growing and spreading in South Africa very seriously indeed. We are doing all that we can to work with the South African Government and to ensure that action is taken to prevent the spread of the disease.
    President Mbeki is right: HIV-AIDS spreads where there is untreated sexually transmitted disease, so it tends to spread more rapidly among poor people. They need other treatment to help them prevent the spread.
    As my hon. Friend knows, we are helping to fund research into injections to vaccinate people against HIV. Anti-retro viral treatment is much more difficult—it is so expensive that if 25 per cent. of the people in Malawi had it, that would cost nearly 100 per cent. of the gross domestic product. Therefore, such treatment is not practical for most of Africa. However, better treatment for tuberculosis is available, and that will give a lot of comfort and help.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is the duty and responsibility of employers in the public and private sectors—particularly the private sector—to take measures to educate their work force on how to manage the problem of HIV-AIDS and the associated illnesses? Is that not the way to begin to reduce the number infected?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right. The more forward-looking employers are doing that. Something like one third of teachers have the infection in many countries that have a grave shortage of teachers. It is also spread by the armed forces, which tend to move around with the infection. There must be more education in schools. We must protect young people so that the next generation does not become infected. Everyone, including the armed forces and employers, must take the problem more seriously.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: The Secretary of State shares everyone's concerns about the terrifying scale of HIV-AIDS in Africa in general, but in Zimbabwe
    326
    in particular. One in four adults in Zimbabwe has the virus, 1,000 die every week from an AIDS-related illness and perhaps the greatest tragedy of all is that 14 per cent. of all children aged four and under are HIV positive through no fault of their own.
    Of the British aid package for the Government of Zimbabwe—roughly £67 million—what percentage is spent on HIV-AIDS? What percentage of that programme does the Secretary of State estimate disappears into pockets of corruption and never gets to the people who so desperately need it?
    Clare Short: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman without notice what proportion of our programme in Zimbabwe is focused on HIV-AIDS. However, I can assure him that we are working on that problem in Zimbabwe. We have had difficulties dealing with this problem, as we have in other matters, because of the lack of political leadership. We share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the situation in Zimbabwe, but we do not believe that it is right simply to cancel the whole of Britain's assistance to Zimbabwe as some of his hon. Friends have requested—[Interruption.] Some have, although perhaps not the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). The poor of Zimbabwe suffer most from the terrible economic crisis, and we want to stay engaged where we can be useful, without giving any support to some of the actions of Zimbabwe's Government that are so destructive for its people and its economy.
    Mr. Streeter: I am certainly not looking to pick a fight with the Secretary of State on this issue, because it is so important. No one wants the people of Zimbabwe to suffer because of the withdrawal of our aid programme, but would it not be more effective to stop channelling the money into the Government of Zimbabwe and redirect it through the charities, non-governmental organisations and churches in that country which are doing a terrific job, particularly for HIV-AIDS victims? Would that not be a better way of ensuring that more money gets through to the people who need it? It would also send a clear signal to the Government of Zimbabwe that their actions are intolerable and we will not support them.
    Clare Short: Although the substantive question was not on Zimbabwe, let me point out that President Mugabe has made it clear that he had a much closer, better, friendlier and warmer relationship with the previous Administration in the United Kingdom than he has with this Government, so I do not think that we will be taking any lessons from the hon. Gentleman and his party on how to deal with the situation in Zimbabwe.
    The situation is terribly serious. We must try to preserve good institutions in Zimbabwe that will function well and care for the people but give the Government no comfort. That is what we are trying to do, and I am sure that it is right.

    Third-world Debt
    Mr. Chris Pond: What recent progress has been made on debt relief for the poorest countries; and if she will make a statement. [115432]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Debt relief under the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries—HIPC—initiative has been agreed for the first three countries, with Mozambique, Senegal and Tanzania being assessed next. Under the new framework, countries are required to develop poverty reduction strategies, which are published, to qualify for debt relief. In that way, we shall ensure that debt relief will help the poor. We are concerned that progress in finalising enhanced debt relief is slower than was originally promised and agreed.
    Mr. Pond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. She will be aware of the Jubilee 2000 claim that 19,000 children die every day as a result of debt. Although I recognise and welcome the progress made under her leadership by the UK Government on this issue, will she do everything that she can to instil a sense of urgency in some other countries in order to reach the commitment made at Cologne that, by the end of this year, 25 countries will be brought to decision point? Time is running out for those countries, and time is running out for those children.
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. The promise that three quarters of the eligible heavily indebted poor countries would have received their enhanced debt relief by the end of 2000 is slipping; it is in danger of not being met. The Government are doing all in our power to exert pressure in Washington to achieve speedier processing of applications. We could do with the support of all Members of Parliament and, indeed, the Jubilee 2000 coalition to put pressure on all the Governments involved as well as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank so that the promises are kept.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if she were to continue with the debt relief package to Zimbabwe, that would send the most appalling message to other countries that, however badly they behaved, they could nevertheless be the beneficiary of debt relief? Will she and the Government take action to deal with the appalling situation in which the only productive element in the economy—that of the white farmers—is being destroyed in an otherwise bankrupt system? May we please have some action from the Government—at least by having Zimbabwe suspended from the Commonwealth?
    Clare Short: This substantive question is not on Zimbabwe either. Zimbabwe is not a highly indebted poor country, nor is it eligible for debt relief. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the situation in that country is extremely serious; the whole economy, including farming, is in trouble. No fuel is available; the economy is grinding to a halt, and the situation is desperately serious for all concerned. We must do everything that we can to get Zimbabwe back on track for the sake of all its people—black and white.
    Mr. Desmond Browne: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), my right hon. Friend expressed her dissatisfaction with the rate of progress in the delivery of
    328
    relief to heavily indebted poor countries. Could she tell the House about the administration blockage in that process and what steps can be taken to clear it?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Behind closed doors in Washington, in the processes of the World Bank and the IMF, countries are able to take up positions that are not the same as those that they take in public. Some countries have not yet found the resources that they owe to the HIPC trust fund in order to carry through the process. However, we have all agreed that countries that establish broad poverty reduction strategies should be able to get on track. They can then refine the programme and receive complete debt relief later. Some countries in the IMF and World Bank put down so many conditions that it takes much time to get countries moving. The whole international community needs to exert pressure over that matter.

    Mozambique
    Mr. Simon Burns: If she will make a statement on progress in the supply of aid to Mozambique. [115433]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The search and rescue phase of the emergency in Mozambique is over. Relief operations continue to progress as access improves. The priority remains to stabilise the conditions of the flood-affected population by providing sufficient shelter, food, water, sanitation and health care, both in accommodation centres and to those able to return home. We are also committed to refocusing and driving forward our growing development programme. Mozambique remains one of the poorest countries on earth—between 30 and 40 per cent. of its children are severely malnourished even when there are no floods. The recent crisis must not be allowed to derail Mozambique's recent progress in economic reform and poverty reduction.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that answer. Will she confirm that one by-product of the recent flooding and disasters in Mozambique has been the shifting by floodwater of huge numbers of land mines, which are left over from the civil wars and represent a lethal threat to the population? Does any of the relief that she is giving that country include either financial or practical aid to help deal with the on-going land mine problem resulting from the floods? Will she confirm that the strong and good work that she and the Government have been doing with the Halo Trust will continue and that there might be additional funding to deal with the new threat?
    Clare Short: I can confirm that, in the Zambezia province, which was not affected by the flooding but was a centre of the civil war, and where the United Kingdom has been asked to lead, we have been working, through the Halo Trust, to clear mines, and that province has been cleared. A very small team of workers is left there because mines are occasionally found in bushes and so on. The suggestion that, in the flooded area, land mines have moved and become dangerous is being taken seriously.

    329
    There is a United Nations expert team there, but I do not know the outcome of the review that it is conducting. I shall find out and let the hon. Gentleman know.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, quite apart from the problem of land mines, there may be great problems in the supply of suitable land for planting once the flood waters have receded? What efforts are being made to identify suitable land and to provide seeds to grow food for the future in Mozambique?
    Clare Short: Many people have lost absolutely everything—their homes, crops, seeds and tools. What we must do—we have learned this—is not just feed those people, because they then become endlessly dependent, but help them to get home, and provide materials so that they can build their own houses, as most African people do, and seeds and tools so that they can plant. However, they need to be fed until crops grow, and that is what we are doing.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State agree that the lack of heavy-lift equipment in the United Kingdom and, indeed, in Europe hampers our response to natural disasters such as the one that has just been experienced in Mozambique? What talks or discussions has she had with the Ministry of Defence and other such Departments in Europe in order to rectify the matter and make a rapid response force a reality?
    Clare Short: I do not agree with the hon. Lady that we should buy military equipment in the UK in order to respond to natural disasters across the world. That is just not the most efficient way of spending money or of getting assistance to people rapidly. If there is a military case for more heavy-lift equipment for MOD forces, it should be made in those terms. Our Department and all those who help in emergencies must always commission the best equipment that can be moved the fastest and is the most effective use of aid resources. As the hon. Lady knows, in the case of Mozambique that meant, first, helicopters from southern Africa and then those from the MOD once the price that it charged was reduced. I do not think that spending money on the MOD for heavy-lift equipment for aid is the right way of going about such matters.
    Mr. Steve McCabe: As well as the legacy of land mines, the civil war left huge gaps in Mozambique's road, rail and communications network. Before the flood, the Government and the authorities were developing a careful, rational plan for improvement, which has obviously now suffered a severe setback. What role will the Department play in helping the longer-term reconstruction of Mozambique?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right; Mozambique is a large country, with good land but few roads. The main north-south road has been breached and needs repairing. There are plans for a link to South Africa, which would help develop the economy. In Zambezia province, we have been helping to find local contractors to build rural roads, which will increase production of crops, because farmers can get to market, and enable more children to
    330
    attend school and more people to access health care. Mozambique needs much of that assistance right across the country in order to develop its economy.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that we should all learn from our experiences, however painful. Since haggling with the Ministry of Defence over the cost of hiring helicopters, what changes has she made in departmental procedures?
    Clare Short: I am sorry that those who speak for the Conservative party cannot seem to understand rationality and facts. It has been made absolutely clear in four presentations to the Select Committee that it is the duty and the job of my Department always to commission equipment that can get as rapidly as possible to people affected by disasters. When the Ministry of Defence first made an offer, the price was very high and the time that it would have taken to get its helicopters to Mozambique was greater than it took to commission other helicopters elsewhere. Therefore, we did not commission the Ministry of Defence's helicopters; we commissioned others. There was thus no delay in getting help to Mozambique.
    Later, the Ministry of Defence cuts its price. There was no haggling; it cut its price and it has said so on the record. Therefore, it was worthwhile commissioning its helicopters. That is how we shall always proceed. The Ministry of Defence has made it clear that it will set its price depending on whether the exercise has training value. That is a matter for that Department.

    Chechnya
    Mr. Harry Cohen: What assistance Her Majesty's Government are providing to assist rebuilding in Chechnya. [115435]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Our assistance to the north Caucasus is focused on meeting emergency humanitarian needs. We have already contributed £1.4 million to the United Nations and to the International Committee of the Red Cross, and about 800,000 euros through our share of the assistance provided by ECHO, the European Commission Humanitarian Office. I am now able to announce an initial UK contribution of $500,000—which is about a third of a million pounds—in response to the latest UN appeal. We stand ready to consider any further requests for assistance.
    Mr. Cohen: I welcome that answer, but the international community did precious little as civilians in Chechnya were rendered homeless and destitute and made refugees in neighbouring republics and states. I know that it was a dangerous situation, but not upsetting the Russians also seemed to inform western policy. Now that the war is over, will the Government offer direct aid to the Chechens and, together with other nations, lean on the Russians to restore Chechnya and say to them, "We know that you can destroy, but can you rebuild?"
    Mr. Foulkes: Both Britain and our European partners condemned the use of indiscriminate force in Chechnya and called for a political process to end the conflict. We have also called for a full and transparent

    331
    investigation into the allegations of human rights abuses. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that clear to President Putin when he met him in St. Petersburg, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made that clear to the Russian Foreign Minister. Our concern is humanitarian assistance, and we shall deal with that as sympathetically as possible. My hon. Friend is quite right about reconstruction—the principal responsibility rests with Russia.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Given that the Putin Government now appear to be committed to the reconstruction of Chechnya, will the Government, together with the European Union, offer assistance and humanitarian aid for the restoration of the Chechen economy and infrastructure?
    Mr. Foulkes: It is clearly far too early to assess what will be needed and how it will be paid for. That is something that we shall have to consider. At the moment, our first priority is to deal with the 180,000 internally displaced people in Ingushetia and those who are suffering in other parts of the north Caucasus. We have a strong and important job to do in that connection. That is our immediate concern.
    Ann Clwyd: Is my hon. Friend aware of the appalling reports received by Amnesty International about the so-called filtration camps where Chechen refugees are held by the Russians and where torture and rape are said to be prevalent? Will he ask the Russian Government to make sure that those appalling human rights abuses come to an end? Will he request that the humanitarian agencies of the International Committee of the Red Cross and medical assistance are allowed into those camps immediately?
    Mr. Foulkes: We are deeply concerned about the reports of human rights abuses. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary telephoned the Russian Foreign Minister to ask directly for an investigation into the allegations of human rights abuses in Chechnya. I will investigate the particular instances that my hon. Friend has mentioned and write to her about them.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Have the Government been told or have they made any estimate of the number of civilians killed in the Chechen conflict?
    Mr. Foulkes: I am not able to answer the hon. Gentleman's question; it is not a matter for the Department for International Development.

    Dakar Education Summit
    Fiona Mactaggart: What progress she expects to be made at the education summit in Dakar; and if she will make a statement. [115436]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The world education forum in Dakar in Senegal will take place at the end of April. I will lead the UK delegation. Our objective is to obtain a strengthened commitment from developing country Governments and international agencies to achieve effective primary education for all children by 2015. That is an achievable
    332
    objective, and there is clear evidence that getting a generation of children educated, including the girls, is the single most powerful development intervention that a country can make.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I take advantage of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is sitting next to her to ask her whether she can make Britain the champion of universal primary education? We have a Government who were elected on a platform of education, education, education, yet around the world the numbers of children in primary education and of literate people are falling. Can we lead a worldwide campaign to ensure that by 2015 everyone in the world learns to read and write?
    Clare Short: As a Government, we are attempting to do that very thing. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has this week given a commitment to try to lead a campaign to make sure that Africa is not bypassed by information technology, and he has made a link with an appropriate company to try to ensure that such technology is brought to Africa and used more effectively in teacher training. There is a danger that information technology will bypass Africa—we need to train more teachers to deliver education in Africa, so my right hon. Friend has made that very commitment.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 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 will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: In his Budget, the Chancellor announced an extra 10,000 nurses. The following day, the Prime Minister himself announced an extra increase in resources for the national health service up to 7.6 per cent. Both major announcements had to be withdrawn and corrected. Will the Prime Minister promise straightforwardness and honesty in future health announcements?
    The Prime Minister: I can indeed confirm that in addition to the 4,500 nurses already in the health service under this Government, there will be another 10,000. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to make that clear. The 7.6 per cent. increase is referable to the 8 per cent. target, and we will meet the 7.6 per cent. target too.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: I thank the Prime Minister for sharing the anger of all at Rover Longbridge, the components suppliers and all those who work in the dealerships at the bombshell dropped by BMW in its disposal of Rover.

    333
    [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Opposition find this funny. Will my right hon. Friend send a message to the many thousands who will march through the city this Saturday to demonstrate the importance of manufacturing and the car industry to our city, our region and our nation?
    The Prime Minister: First of all, I know how desperately serious the situation is, and I fully understand and share the deep concerns that the march demonstrates. I can tell my hon. Friend that we will carry on doing everything that we possibly can. Our action includes the £129 million that we have already allocated to support Rover Longbridge investment and to make sure that people who will lose their job will have the chance, through that investment, to gain another job.
    The taskforce is now up and working. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is at a meeting with BMW, and is working with the company to protect the jobs that can be protected and to make sure that BMW fulfils its proper responsibilities. This is a deeply serious situation; we are aware of its seriousness, and that is why I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will be on that march, making these points, on Saturday.
    Mr. William Hague: We agree with the Prime Minister about the level of public concern and we support the work of the taskforce, but is he aware that, this morning, the chief executive of BMW UK told the Select Committee that, last year, the losses at Rover were such that the whole BMW group was at risk? There are reports today that, on 20 December, the chairman of BMW as a whole told the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry:
    We may have to reconsider our whole investment in Britain altogether.
    Can the Prime Minister confirm that?
    The Prime Minister: No, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it clear that the conversation, which, if I recall rightly, took place on 22 December, was about the need to speed up the application to the European Commission for aid funding. As a result of that conversation, my right hon. Friend got in touch with the Commission, which agreed to fast-track the application. It is incorrect to say that BMW's chairman informed him that the company was about to close Longbridge.
    Mr. Hague: The precise words in question are:
    We may have to reconsider our whole investment in Britain altogether.
    BMW did not walk in with a "For Sale" sign, but those words appear to provide a pretty important clue. It is reported that the chairman of BMW says that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
    knew before Christmas how serious the position was. The message was crystal clear, even at this … stage.
    That contrasts with the statement the Government made two weeks ago, that they did not know what was going on and they had not been told anything at all.
    Are there not only two possibilities: first, that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was warned of the seriousness of the situation and did insufficient about it; and, secondly, that he should have known, but knew nothing, despite the fact that it now turns out that Rover
    334
    had been offered for sale to General Motors and Ford? When £150 million of taxpayers' money is involved in the securing of tens of thousands of jobs, is it not his business to know such things? Is that not what he is for?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman tries to make political capital of the situation—I really am. I have already explained the conversation that took place with the chairman of BMW. The claim made at the time was in respect of the European Commission aid application; we did everything we could to accelerate its progress, and we succeeded in fast-tracking the application. However, that was not the issue that determined BMW's ultimate decision. That decision having been made, we can do only one thing: work night and day, as we will, both to put in the money necessary for reinvestment and to ensure that those who are displaced and lose their jobs find other jobs. The truth is, the right hon. Gentleman has no alternative policy to offer.
    Mr. Hague: When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry presides over a mess of such magnitude, he is meant to be held to account in the House of Commons. That is one of the things for which the House exists, but we have to ask the Prime Minister because the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made only rare appearances in the House in the past two weeks.
    Does the Prime Minister not find it disturbing that his right hon. Friend provides a classic example of this all mouth, no delivery Government? He announces the Government grant with great fanfare at the time, but fails to secure its delivery and allows it to become bogged down in European Union bureaucracy. Despite clear messages from BMW, he fails to understand the seriousness of the situation and then denies having been told anything of any significance. He is seen everywhere when the jobs seem secure, but is nowhere to be seen when they are at risk. Finally, the best defence he can muster is that, as the UK's Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he knew nothing about the likely fate of tens of thousands of jobs and £150 million of public money. Does the Prime Minister still have confidence in the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?
    The Prime Minister: I think that some of those who work at Longbridge will remember who sold off Longbridge. As for saying that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has never gone near Longbridge, he went there immediately after the announcement was made. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities is there today.
    As has been made clear by everyone, the reason for BMW's decision had nothing to do with the European Commission application. We have done everything that we possibly can. The only intelligent way forward is to make sure that we make the investment in the future for Longbridge that can be preserved, and help those who will lose their jobs to find others. The worst thing that we could do for the midlands and the car industry is return to the disastrous policies pursued by the Conservatives when they were in office. In case people have forgotten, let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that, when he was a member of the last Conservative Government, 1

    335
    million manufacturing jobs were lost in this country. The one group of people from whom the Longbridge workers will take no lessons is the Conservative party.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: It must be progress for a Lancashire Member to be able to praise an initiative from Yorkshire. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the Yorkshire building society's campaign against excessive cash machine charges? It has produced a petition with more than 100,000 names, which was presented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on Monday. Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.] Yes, he was on the job.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Come along, Mr. Marsden.
    Mr. Marsden: Does the Prime Minister agree that the efforts of banks such as Barclays and others in this direction, and in the closure programme of branches that goes with it, threaten to undermine everything that the Government are doing for rural areas to tackle social exclusion and help pensioners? Will he use all the powers at his disposal to cap cash machine charges and to address the issues?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that yesterday the banks and building societies ruled out the possibility that consumers could be charged twice for one cash withdrawal. That is a step in the right direction. However, the banks and building societies need to go further if they are to meet the concerns of their customers.
    I know that some banks and building societies have already indicated that they do not propose to impose any cash machine charges, and we welcome that. We shall continue to make sure that they live up to their responsibilities properly.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: On Northern Ireland, does the Prime Minister concur with the views that were expressed to me repeatedly by all parties in recent days in both Belfast and Dublin that, given the suspension of the Assembly, the big worry is that a political vacuum will now develop? What priorities are the Government and the Prime Minister pursuing to try to ensure that such a vacuum does not develop?
    The Prime Minister: It is very important that a political vacuum does not develop. That would be dangerous for Northern Ireland. We will do everything we can, both working with the Irish Government and with the parties in Northern Ireland, to make sure that that does not happen. Rounds of discussions have been taking place already between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the parties in Northern Ireland, and we will carry on these discussions in the next few weeks to make sure that we can put the institutions back up again. That is the best security for people in Northern Ireland.
    It is a frustrating process. Every major question has been resolved by the Good Friday agreement. Every major point of principle can be resolved. It would be a tragedy
    336
    if we lost this chance for peace. I believe that there still exists the residual will in Northern Ireland to find a way through.
    Mr. Kennedy: I am sure that the whole House will wish to support the Prime Minister in those sentiments. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that as long as the Assembly is suspended—let us hope that it can be restored as soon as is politically possible—the Council of the Isles stands suspended as well?
    There is deep concern in Belfast and Dublin, as well as in our country, about Sellafield, an issue that could properly be discussed and considered in the context of the Council of the Isles. Given that that option is not available, and given also the grave concerns about Sellafield on both sides of the Irish sea, what steps are the Government taking on this issue?
    The Prime Minister: Ministers have made it clear to the chairman of BNFL that we want to see big changes in the way that it is run and managed. The chairman is due to report back to Department of Trade and Industry Ministers by early April on the plans for that. New senior management is now in place. It is important to emphasise that the Health and Safety Executive has given a safety clearance to reprocessing. The work force is immensely dedicated, talented and skilled. I am sure that with that dedication and talent, the clearance from the HSE and the new plan that will be submitted, BNFL can go back on a sound and secure footing for the future.
    Mr. Steve McCabe: My right hon. Friend has no doubt seen the recent Audit Commission report, with its damning criticisms of the inadequate help and the poor provision of essential equipment, aids and adaptations for elderly people and people with disabilities. Surely that state of affairs in modern Britain is totally unacceptable. What does he intend to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: We have, of course, seen the Audit Commission report. We agree that its findings of poor performance in many areas over some time are unacceptable. This morning I discussed that and other health service issues with the heads of the Audit Commission, the Commission for Health Improvement and the social services inspectorate, together with a number of key doctors, nurses and managers who are driving through change in the national health service. I was deeply impressed both by their commitment and by the recognition right across the service that there are many examples of excellent practice, and also many examples in which practice is falling far short of what is acceptable.
    I have no doubt that now that the issue of resources in the NHS has been resolved, at least for the foreseeable future, the health service has the chance to put in place the changes and reforms necessary to deliver tip-top service for the patients. It is heartening that the people working in the health service are, in my view, fully up for the change that needs to take place.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the widespread support in the House for his Government's proposals on climate change and renewable energy. Is he aware, however, that applications for large-scale wind farm

    337
    development in mid-Wales and Ceredigion are not decided by local authorities or by the National Assembly for Wales, but are still decided by the Department of Trade and Industry? Will he undertake to use his influence to review that legislative oversight and, in the mean time, will he give an undertaking to my constituents that his Government will not seek to push through a planning application in the face of local authority or National Assembly opposition?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot promise any legislative changes to the relationship between the Welsh Assembly and this Parliament, but I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. If he will allow me to do so, I shall write to him.
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Has my right hon. Friend noted the social security report this morning, which shows that the gap between poor pensioners and rich pensioners has increased significantly over the past 20 years? Is not the minimum income guarantee a good way of addressing that? Will he give it his personal backing, and is not that the duty of every hon. Member, and above all, perhaps, members of the Opposition, who did so little for the oldest and poorest pensioners when their party was in power?
    The Prime Minister: It is correct that the Conservative party opposed the £150 winter allowance and the minimum income guarantee, which increase the incomes of the poorest pensioners by some £500 a year. We want to make sure that those who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee claim it. That is why we are launching the minimum income guarantee take-up campaign. As part of that campaign, we shall write to more than 2 million pensioners who, we believe, may be eligible, to encourage them to claim. The minimum income guarantee will make a real difference. Pensioners' incomes vary, and we must make sure that they are getting more help, especially those living in poverty.
    Mr. William Hague: This weekend, a senior Cabinet Minister was reported as saying that if the Government are defeated again in the Lords on section 28—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.] It is no good Labour Members not wanting to talk about it. It was the Government who introduced the measure into Parliament. It was reported that if the Government are defeated again in the Lords on section 28, the Prime Minister will simply say
    I tried and failed; now good riddance to the issue.
    Is it true that he is now ready to back down on section 28?
    The Prime Minister: No, it is not true. We remain committed to the repeal of section 28, and we remain set against the mischievous propaganda campaign which has suggested that repealing section 28 will mean that children in our schools will have their sex education lessons changed. That is completely untrue. Since 1994, under the previous Government, section 28 has not applied to schools in England and Wales. If the right hon. Gentleman disputes that, let him now get up and say so. If he does not dispute it, he should stop associating himself with that propaganda.
    Mr. Hague: If the Prime Minister is not ready to back down on this, why does he have his Ministers running
    338
    around telling newspapers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is the Prime Minister who has to answer the questions at Question Time.
    If the Prime Minister is not ready to back down, why does he have his Ministers running around telling newspapers that he is heartily sick of the issue and ready to give up on the whole thing? Is it not because he likes to say different things to different people at the same time in order to fool all of the people all of the time? Let us get this straight. Just so that we know what we have to do to get him to back off on this politically correct nonsense, will he tell us whether, if the Lords defeat the measure one more time, he will abandon it?
    The Prime Minister: We remain committed to the repeal of section 28. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not say whether he accepts that it has not applied to schools in this country since 1994. There is one reason and one reason only why people are concerned about the repeal of section 28: because they are being told that it affects sex education in schools. First, sex education in schools has been the prerogative of teachers, parents and governors since 1994. Secondly, any parent has the right by law to withdraw their child from any sex education in schools.
    I know that it is my job to answer the questions, not the right hon. Gentleman's. But, if he does not want to be accused of hiding behind prejudice, he should say whether he accepts that what I have just said is true.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Hague: I am very happy to move to the other side of the Chamber and answer the questions at any time.
    Section 28 applies to councils administering schools and it applies to the advice and material that councils give to schools. Now that I have answered the Prime Minister's question, let us have an answer to mine. When will he realise that the majority in this country are tolerant and understanding, but that they do not want their children subject to politically correct propaganda? That is why he has lost the argument, and that is why Members of the Cabinet go around saying that this has been a distraction. Is it not time that the Government focused on delivering services that people actually want instead of wasting time and money on the Labour party's pet political projects? Why does the Prime Minister not listen to the common sense of the great majority of the people and abandon this now before it goes to the Lords again?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, and let me repeat to people, section 28 has nothing whatever to do with sex education in schools. It never has had. As I say, since 1994, it has not even applied to schools. The truth of the matter is that the campaign is based on people who do not want to come out and say that they are prejudiced against gay people. They do not want—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: They do not want to say that they are prejudiced against gay people, so they hide behind the issue of child protection. No child will be forced to take part in gay sex lessons in schools. No child will engage

    339
    in school sex lessons that are wrong. Sex lessons in schools will carry on being the prerogative of teachers, parents and governors. Parents will carry on having the right to withdraw their children from those sex education lessons. Those are the facts. The right hon. Gentleman knows them, and—just occasionally—he should stand up for what is right rather than join in a campaign that misrepresents the facts and would have no chance of gaining any popular support if it did not misrepresent the facts.
    Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Is the Prime Minister aware that a Ministry of Defence spokesman has stated that British shipyards are at risk of not receiving the pending roll-on, roll-off ferries order? Does he also know that, before any decision has been made, a Minister has told a shop steward that the order is likely to go to Germany?
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of that. The Ministry of Defence has not made its decision yet. My hon. Friend should at least await that decision.
    Mr. James Gray: The recent cancer summit at No. 10 Downing street was described by the World Health Organisation cancer chief as a silly photo opportunity and orchestrated hype with nothing at the end to show for it. Will tomorrow's farmers summit at No. 10 Downing street be more substantive? Will farmers go home with something more than a free photo opportunity and a copy of the Prime Minister's speech?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman opposes the additional work that we are doing on cancer services; £50 million is going towards those services. Perhaps he should listen to Dr. Mike Richards, who said that the cancer service programme that we are establishing will result in a dramatic increase in the treatment of cancer patients in the next few years. The best way in which to improve cancer services is to support the additional investment in the health service under this Government.
    We have had a week of waiting for an answer from the Conservative party. Does the position that the shadow Chancellor set out—tax cuts come first—remain the same, or do Conservative Members support investment in public services? Until they come out and explain how they will support measures to invest in public services, their protestations about the health service will ring hollow.
    Mr. Ian Pearson: Is the Prime Minister aware that BMW has stripped out the capital plant equipment for the new Mini line in Longbridge and transferred it to Birmingham international airport? Will he explain to the chairman of BMW that there is no airport at Cowley, and that if he wants to keep his word this time, and build the new Mini in Oxford, it would be best to drive the equipment down the M40?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that we can pass on my hon. Friend's comments to the chairman.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Prime Minister recall that when he and I contested the Beaconsfield by-election, he was welcomed to the
    340
    constituency by the headline in the local paper, "Benn-backing Barrister is Labour's Choice"? That is Benn-backing rather than Ken-backing. Does he know that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) supports my Bill to provide targets for organic food and farming? At tomorrow's summit at No. 10 Downing street, will he explicitly acknowledge the need to expand organic foods—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear a word. [Interruption.] Order. This is a Parliament and hon. Members must be heard.
    Mr. Tyler: At the summit for farmers tomorrow, will the Prime Minister reiterate his commitment, which he made at last month's National Farmers Union annual general meeting, to an expansion of organic food and farming? Will he prevent his Whip from shouting "Object" to my Bill?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of Beaconsfield and how far he has moved to higher and better things.
    We are increasing support and subsidy to organic farming. Consequently, the number of organic farmers is increasing. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that. I hope that at tomorrow's summit we can provide a short-term strategy and long-term assistance for farming.
    Dr. George Turner: The Prime Minister has already referred to the problems that the banks are bringing to many of our communities. As the Postal Services Bill is making its way to the other place, does he believe that the other side of the coin is ensuring that the post offices can be the saviours of community banking? Will he assure the House and my constituents that the Government will do everything in their power to make sure that they can do so?
    The Prime Minister: We remain fully committed to the network of nationwide post offices and we want to see them thrive. For that very reason, we have worked with the Post Office to install some 3,000 cash machines nationally at post offices in smaller towns and villages. The first 400 will be installed this summer. We are also working with the Post Office for a longer-term strategy to make sure that we can carry on with the sensible changes to and modernisation of the Post Office that allows those post offices to remain central to local communities.
    Mr. Robert Walter: I was in my constituency this morning and village post offices were again the topic of conversation. As the Prime Minister has said, he is making some moves in that direction, but can he guarantee that no village post office in my constituency will close in 2003?
    The Prime Minister: I can scarcely contemplate the cheek of the Conservative party: it asks for a commitment when it was responsible for closing hundreds of rural post offices when it was in office. We will carry on working to make sure that they have a secure future, but let us be clear about the changes on automatic credit transfer. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we inherited that investment

    341
    from the previous Government. The reason for those changes—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the truth. It was inherited from the previous Government. As a result of it, many of the transaction costs will be reduced. However, we have made it clear that those who want to get their benefits in cash will carry on being able to do so and we will sit down with the people in the Post Office and work out a viable way forward for the future.
    342
    We need to make the changes because they are the right changes to make, but we will do everything in our power to safeguard rural post offices. We are not going to take lessons from a Conservative party that closed the rural post offices and is now mounting a completely opportunistic campaign when the very authors of the pressure on the post offices today sit on the Opposition side of the House of Commons.

Point of Order
3.32 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, at business questions last week, the Leader of the House anticipated that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would wish to keep the House informed of the progress of his discussions on Rover-BMW. We are aware from the press of the meetings that he has had. Have you yet received any request from him to make a statement or to inform the House of the progress that he may have made?
Madam Speaker: No, I have not been informed that the Secretary of State is seeking to make a statement. The hon. Lady will have heard the exchanges between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister today and she will know, like me, that the Secretary of State has to answer questions tomorrow. Perhaps she will try to catch my eye at that stage, when she might put a question or two to him.

Zoo Licensing (Amendment)
3.33 pm
Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 so as to make it unlawful to operate a circus except with the authority of a licence.
A few weeks ago, a scurrilous article appeared that claimed that the House of Commons was full of animals. It said that the Conservative Benches are full of dinosaurs, the Labour Benches full of sheep and the Liberal Benches full of dead parrots. As we all know, that clearly is not the case. The only animals in the House of which I am aware are the delightful guide dog of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the springer spaniels that sniff round the place before our proceedings start and the mouse or rat that decided to make an appearance on the Floor of the Chamber a few weeks ago.
Like other hon. Members, I am an animal lover and I keep pets of all varieties. My animals, for various reasons, are able to do a number of tricks, which seem to involve giving them food. My dog will do anything if he is given food. I breed various birds and when I enter the aviaries I am a cross between the birdman of Alcatraz and St. Francis. All the birds fly to me and take food from my hand. My fish are also very keen to receive food. I also breed budgerigars. One called Perky Playle, which I gave to some friends, speaks about five languages. Its owners say that they have not spent any time teaching it to talk, but it seems to have a wide repertoire. None of the activities that I have described are cruel in any way; indeed, they demonstrate love for animals.
Some hon. Members may inadvertently have visited circuses featuring animals. It is bizarre to see whips being used on tigers and other animals to make them do all sorts of things that they do not seem to enjoy at all. A few years ago I went to a French circus, not realising that live animals would be involved. A goat was made to keep climbing on to tiny stools until it was high in the air—I do not know how high, but what was being done to it and to other animals was cruel beyond belief. I am presenting my Bill for those and other reasons.
Three events that have gained public attention are the publication of the Animal Defenders document "The Ugliest Show on Earth"—I am sure that hon. Members recall the campaign during which we received postcards; the unfortunate conviction of Mary Chipperfield for cruelty to her chimpanzee; and the report by the associate parliamentary group for animal welfare on the welfare of circus animals in England and Wales. Sadly, the group was unable to reach any conclusion on three options: a complete ban on the use of animals, specific legislation for animal welfare in circuses, and no change at all. My Bill addresses those three points. I think it unfortunate that nothing has been done so far.
The Bill would bring all circuses using performing wild animals—domestic animals would not be covered—within the purview of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, by removing the circus exemption in the Act. The Act was passed two years before I became a Member of Parliament; I therefore accept no blame for the exemption, but I am advised that the definitions of domestic and circus animals were somewhat confused. Twenty years on, it seems sensible to remove the exemption.

345
Section 1(2) of the Act defines "zoo" as
an establishment where wild animals (as defined by section 21) are kept for exhibition to the public otherwise than for the purpose of a circus.
Section 21 defines wild animals as
animals not normally domesticated in Great Britain.
Under the simple licensing regime that I propose, a circus owner would apply for a licence under the 1981 Act from his or her local authority. The circus would therefore require a registered address. I am told that bogus addresses are often used from a London base. The existing legislation does not require registered addresses. The licence would be issued on the basis of recommendations in reports made by zoo inspectors nominated for the purpose by the Secretary of State. A licence could be refused if the local authority were not satisfied that standards of accommodation, staffing or management were adequate, or if the applicant—either an individual or corporate body or its representative, or any person employed as a keeper—had been prosecuted under this or any other legislation involving the ill-treatment of animals.
Finally, the local authority would be able to attach any conditions that it considered necessary to the proper conduct of the circus: for instance, training, staff competence, veterinary standards and animal husbandry. I am grateful for the advice that I have received from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The Bill would require a registered address, which would allow a proper record to be kept of the number of circuses in the United Kingdom. That would help to establish information regarding the number of animals working in circuses and provide up-to-date records on the number of touring circuses.
It would also improve the welfare standards for wild animals while in winter quarters. Many hon. Members will be only too well aware of the little crowds that gather around some circus animals during winter. Doubts are expressed about the way in which they are looked after.
346
Those quarters would be required to be licensed and would be inspected periodically. They would have to comply with the same standards as zoos. The standards would be devised by experts on the latest scientific and animal behavioral research.
The health and safety of the public would be addressed by standards relating to security of accommodation for those animals. Circus holding or training centres would be covered by the Act, improving the standards for animals while not touring as part of the circus.
The Act would specifically not outlaw performances by wild animals for the purpose of public entertainment. I am not saying that I would not want that but, as a politician, I believe that politics is the art of the possible. That is why I am advancing these measures.
The Bill would not prohibit circuses from performing with animals, or prevent touring and the use of beast wagons while touring. It would not prevent prosecutions under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Individuals working in or owning zoos or circuses would still be prosecuted for cruelty under that Act—as Mary Chipperfield was. I hope that the House will welcome this short measure. I realise that, even if the House gives it a First Reading today, it will face many pitfalls on Friday afternoons, but it is an opportunity for the House to build on its splendid record on animal welfare and to make a difference for animals. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. Norman Baker, Jackie Ballard, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Tim Loughton, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Martin Salter and Mr. Tim Yeo.

Zoo Licensing (Amendment)
  ZOO LICENSING (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 so as to make it unlawful to operate a circus except with the authority of a licence: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday, 14 April, and to be printed [Bill 101].
Orders of the Day

  Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered
  Ordered,
  That the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely: New Clauses relating to Part I, amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 15, Clauses 75 and 76, Schedule 8, Clauses 16 to 26, Schedule 3, Clauses 27 to 29, New Clauses relating to Part III, amendments relating to Clauses 57 to 62, Schedule 6, Clause 63, Schedule 7, Clauses 64 to 68, New Clauses relating to Part IV, amendments relating to Clauses 69 to 74, New Clauses relating to Chapter I of Part II, amendments relating to Clauses 30 and 31, Schedule 4, Clauses 32 to 39, New Clauses relating to Chapter II of Part H, amendments relating to Clauses 40 to 51, Schedule 5, New Clauses relating to Chapter III of Part II, amendments relating to Clauses 52 to 56, Remaining New Clauses, amendments relating to Clauses 77 and 78, Schedule 9, Clauses 79 and 80, New Schedules.—[Mr. Rooker]

  Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
    New Clause 4

      PRIORITY COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT MAINTENANCE
      'In the Child Support Act 1991 there shall be inserted after section 43 the following section—
      "43A. In exercising his powers under sections 29 to 43 of this Act the Secretary of State shall ensure that such powers are exercised with a view to securing the collection and enforcement of child support maintenance from those non-resident parents who have failed to pay any amount of child support maintenance and that this duty is accorded priority over the collection and enforcement of child support maintenance from those non-resident parents who have made some payments of child support maintenance.".'.—[Mr. Pickles.]
      Brought up, and read the First time
      3.44 pm
      Mr. Eric Pickles: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—Deduction of earnings orders—
      '.—There shall be substituted for section 31(3) of the Child Support Act 1991 the following—
      "(3) A deduction of earnings order shall be made so as to secure the payment both of arrears of child support maintenance payable under the maintenance calculation and amounts of child support maintenance which will become due.".'.
      Amendment No. 89, in clause 16, page 14, line 41, at end insert—
      '(1A) After section 39A of the 1991 Act there shall be inserted—
      ".—(1) In either of the circumstances mentioned in section 39A(1) the magistrates' court may of its own motion order such of the measures mentioned in (2) as it thinks fit.
      (2) The measures mentioned in (1) are—

      (a) an order that any welfare benefits that the liable person is in receipt of at the time of the application be reduced by such amount as the Court thinks fit;

      (b) a warrant of execution in respect of any goods owned by the liable person;

      348

      (c) a home detention curfew of like effect to an order as could be made under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or;

      (d) a community service order.

      (3) When making an application under section 39A the Secretary of State shall provide to the magistrates' court a statement setting out which welfare benefits the liable person is in receipt of and the amounts thereof.".'.
      Government amendment No. 40.
      Amendment No. 76, in clause 19, page 20, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—

      '(i) a maximum of 20 per cent. of any relevant benefit received by the parent for the first six months;

      (ii) a maximum of 10 per cent. of any relevant benefit received by the parent for a remaining twelve months;

      and the maximum period, without possibility of extension, is eighteen months.'.
      Mr. Pickles: I am sorry. I nearly got to my feet when the order of consideration motion was moved formally, Madam Speaker. Members nearly had the opportunity to hear my speech twice.
      These matters relate to enforcement. We are here to help the Government to meet their straightforward promises. The other night, I had the pleasure of seeing the Minister of State in the Lobby. He asked whether I had been reading any interesting books with which I might entertain the House. Indeed I have. I had the opportunity to read a Labour party document that was first published in October 1996, entitled "Children First: Reforming Child Support". It is pretty thin on plot, but it is the progenitor of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. Given that I am also interested in the cinema, I could say that if that document was the novel, the Bill is the screenplay. As in most cases, there is a considerable difference between the novel and the screenplay. We want to go back to the Labour party's original proposals.
      The document makes the following clear statement:
      We will insist that the agency reaches demanding targets to protect taxpayers' interests.
      We would all applaud that. It continues:
      Our initial target will be to ensure that an additional 100,000 absent parents pay maintenance.
      That is exactly what new clause 4 seeks to achieve and would be in the interests of the Child Support Agency.
      When the Bill becomes law, two systems will operate concurrently. Tonight, we shall be asked to approve a system that will force parents to make payments that we consider to be essentially unfair, as the old system will operate side by side with the new one. The true beneficiaries—not the intended ones—will therefore be those who have paid nothing. We want to ensure that those who have made and continue to make contributions are not made out to be mugs. Parents who have obeyed the law and sought to meet their obligations must not be placed at a disadvantage compared with those who have attempted to evade their responsibilities. New clause 4 seeks to wipe the smiles off the faces of parents who have not taken financial responsibility for their children.
      I quote with approval the document "Children First: Reforming Child Support" which states:
      We start with the basic principle that parents, not the taxpayer should have the main responsibility for supporting their children.

      349
      Parents who bring children into the world must accept that they have a responsibility. They have an obligation to look after their child until adulthood and to support that child financially.
      Amendment No. 89 deals with curfew orders and other matters. On Second Reading there was a certain amount of criticism from all parts of the House of the Government's proposals to take away people's driving licences if they committed an offence under the Bill. Not a single speech—not even from the most loyal Back Bencher—said that that was a good idea. There was an earlier suggestion that people's passports should be taken away also, but that idea has been dropped from the Bill, perhaps owing to the mess in the UK Passport Agency. The Minister of State, Home Office might have ended up taking away everyone's passport. I recall my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) once receiving a briefing about the Medellin cartel, a drugs cartel that operates in Colombia. Someone in one of the five accountancy firms used by the cartel was leaking information about the cartel. The cartel could not work out which accountant was leaking, so it decided to execute all five of the accountants involved in its affairs. Although I am sure that, whatever we may think of our accountants, we all agree that that was an overreaction, the point is that the Government seem to be diminishing the value of removing passports as a penalty by failing to issue them initially.
      The problem with the Bill is that it provides for no penalties other than a fine and/or imprisonment and loss of driving licence. Amendment No. 89 provides new penalties, thereby allowing flexibility. The amendment is essentially similar to an amendment that I tabled in Committee—I see the Minister nodding vigorously. That amendment briefly took her fancy—she thought that it might be a good idea—until she got back to the Department, where it was discussed. I received a nice note back saying that it was not the Government's policy to make such a provision. I shall come back to that matter in a few moments, because I think that the Government are making a mistake. Our proposal would provide flexibility.
      The proposal to remove driving licences has been heavily criticised. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, Mr. Jonathan Simpson of the RAC makes four principal criticisms of the proposal. I shall summarise the points, as it would be tedious to read them out. He says that there has always been a case for disqualifying motorists as a penalty for motoring offences such as dangerous or bad driving. Such a penalty is directly related to the offence, and is therefore obviously justifiable and acceptable in the eyes of the public. However, as the RAC points out, failure to comply with a maintenance order is an entirely different matter. The RAC is concerned that the application of the penalty in maintenance cases will be the beginning of a slippery slope, and that the penalty will in future be applied to various non-driving offences. The RAC goes as far as to suggest that a motorist could face disqualification for dropping litter.
      The RAC also believes that removing someone's driving licence could end that person's ability to earn a living. Not unreasonably, the RAC concludes that application of the penalty could reduce those people's
      350
      prospects of being able to make regular maintenance payments. If people cannot commute to work or perform their duties at work because they no longer have a driving licence, their ability to provide reasonable sums will be diminished.
      The RAC makes another suggestion, for which I have no sympathy. It says that the provision may well cause an increase in the number of those who drive a motor car while disqualified. That may or may not be true. However, I do not think that such a possibility is a valid reason for suggesting that the provision should not be made.
      We criticise the provision quite simply because it lacks flexibility. Additionally, it seems ridiculous to place on the same level the penalty of loss of driving licence and the penalty of fine and/or imprisonment. The Bill makes loss of licence an alternative to imprisonment, not an addition to it.
      Our proposal extends the range of available penalties. We are praying in aid the Prime Minister's suggestion that electronic tagging should be extended to domestic violence and stalking offenders. Frankly, it is a natural extension to apply the measure to the Child Support Agency to get getting people into the habit of paying and acting responsibly.
      An article on 7 September in "Justice of the Peace" asked whether it was necessary or desirable to keep an offender away from undesirable associates at, for example, football matches, rallies or clubs. Essentially, the proposal is for a curfew order: we are saying that someone will not be able to go to football on a Saturday afternoon, pour their earnings down their throats or go clubbing at the weekend. The offender's first call will be his child maintenance payments. The article asked also whether the offender indulged in irresponsible leisure activities.
      The proposal is part of an established pattern of getting people to accept their responsibilities. The Minister has said that the Government do not want to start mixing criminal and civil sanctions, and that they would not table an amendment to that effect. I am used to accepting disappointments, but the House will be disappointed too.
      Mr. Andrew Dismore: Amendment No. 89 states that the court has the power to reduce the amount of benefit that someone may have to pay. The hon. Gentleman's intention is to get people to pay more, but his proposal effectively encourages people who want to put off paying, as they will always think that the magistrates court will bail them out in the end—particularly bearing in mind the fact that there is no provision in the amendment to allow the parent with care to make representations to the magistrates court. Is not the amendment effectively creating an appeal to the court through the back door?
      Mr. Pickles: No, it is not. It is an attempt to make some sense of the Bill, and to offer the courts the opportunity of a wider range for breaches of sanction, other than imprisonment or a fine. After all, these matters would apply only where there was an application for default. This is not something that will arise in the normal course of events in which the parent with care and the non-resident parent discuss the financial future of their children. It will come into play where someone is in default. The amendment is not a way in which the

      351
      non-resident parent can apply through the back door. It gives the courts a greater degree of flexibility, and seeks to strike a balance and to ensure that someone gets into the habit of regular payment, gets back to a degree of social responsibility and recognises that the Child Support Agency is not a soft touch.
      Under the legislation as drafted, people have a choice between losing their driving licences or going to jail. I suspect that most people will opt to lose their licences. After all, people who are not in the regular habit of using a motor vehicle might consider that to be a way of getting off scot free. We are seeking to achieve a balance.
      The new clause is not set in stone, as it might not work exactly as we hope. It has been tabled to stimulate debate and to get the Minister to expand on her letter to me. However, I hope that she will accept that our intention is to extend the enforcement powers of the CSA, not to give people a way out by the back door.
      4 pm
      Mr. Frank Field: The whole House wants the reform to work, so I am anxious to know what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. Does he mean to establish a menu of penalties that the CSA could use, or is he proposing that the CSA must take certain actions in certain circumstances?
      Mr. Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman's first suggestion is what we want to achieve. We want to extend the menu of actions available to the CSA. At present, there are only the extremes of losing a driving licence or going to prison, with the option of a fine somewhere in the middle. We want a graduated scale. Clearly, curfew orders will not work unless there is a reasonable anticipation that the people involved will abide by them. However, the Government are researching ways to extend such orders beyond their original application, which was as a way to help offenders released on licence to prepare to return to society.
      It is extremely sensible to take into consideration domestic violence and stalking.
      Mr. Simon Burns: I have been listening to my hon. Friend extremely carefully. The new clauses rightly make suggestions about how to strengthen the encouragement given to people to pay child maintenance. However, I am slightly worried that there is another side to that coin, involving a parent who pays the maintenance but who does not have access to the children of the relationship. Does my hon. Friend think that the Bill should tackle that equally important issue?
      Mr. Pickles: A later group of amendments deals with the relationship between the non-resident parent and the parent with care. However, my hon. Friend is right to express concern that the Bill might well cause children to find themselves caught between parents feuding over financial matters. The Bill draws questions of access and finance close together, and means that it could be in one party's financial interest to keep a child over on a Sunday evening and to take it back to school on the Monday,
      352
      rather than returning it to the other party on the Sunday night. My hon. Friend has made a valid point about access.
      Mr. Field: Am I right in thinking that the Opposition are proposing to add to the range of measures that CSA officials would have at their disposal to enforce the legislation when it is enacted?
      Mr. Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman is nearly right. Under the terms of amendment No. 87, CSA officials would have to apply to the court for enforcement of the proposed options. Excellent though the CSA is, anything else would be a step too far.
      I commend the new clause and the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Burns: I rise to support new clause 4. I should like to describe the criticism that I have heard most often in constituency surgeries over the past eight years or so, whatever the views on the Child Support Act 1991 and on the Government's reforms before us today. The parent who pays child maintenance and complies with the Child Support Agency's assessment feels that he is a soft target because he does not seek to hide his financial responsibilities, whereas, in the early days, an organised, hard-core group sought to bring the child maintenance system to a grinding halt through their obstruction of the operations of the original CSA and to avoid paying any child maintenance whatever.
      New clause 4, which would strengthen the powers of the CSA, is eminently sensible. It would take away the sense of unfairness and special targeting felt by a group who do not want to cause trouble and want to make a financial contribution to their children's upbringing.
      Mr. Dismore: I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. May I put a hypothetical question to him? What is the position of a person who pays £1 or £2 a week but is liable to pay considerably more and could therefore accrue substantial debts, as compared with a person who has to pay only a small amount in the first place and does not pay any? Which case does the hon. Gentleman think should be pursued first? The new clause suggests that the person to be pursued is the one paying nothing who has only a small amount to pay, whereas someone with a huge amount to pay could effectively avoid being caught by this proposal by paying a token amount.
      Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman has raised a third issue. I was coming on to the issue of parents who pay. The person who pays nothing should be pursued because he is seeking to avoid all his financial responsibilities. Similarly, if an individual is playing the system at a minimal level to try to avoid his full financial responsibilities, he must also be pursued by the CSA.
      The trouble with any legislation that contains an either/or option is that some people will seek to use the existing law to maximise their abuse of it, and we have here an example.
      Mr. Pickles rose—
      Mr. Burns: If my hon. Friend wishes to tell us of another one, I shall give way to him with pleasure.
      Mr. Pickles: I was merely going to suggest that that is one of the advantages of such a matter going before the

      353
      courts. The courts would take the view that such a person was attempting to get round the system. Someone who doles out £1 or £2 a week is playing around. That example further strengthens the need for the new clause.
      Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have all had examples over the past eight or nine years of people who have played the system, or sought to play the system, to avoid their financial responsibilities.
      There is one point on which I am confused, although I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) is not. I should like clarification. To give priority to those individuals who make no financial contribution above those who are making a full and proper contribution must not also mean that the administrative systems of the CSA fall behind, thus inadvertently causing problems for those who want to pay the full amount, but are still awaiting assessment for payment, or waiting to have an assessment confirmed.
      Mr. Field: Does not the new clause have one real disadvantage? Let us take our mind into the next Parliament, where I expect that the hon. Gentleman will still be sitting on the Opposition Benches and Labour will be on the Government Benches. The Opposition will be looking for the amount collected under the new Act. If we pass the new clause, one of the covers available to the Government would be that maintenance payments—or the rate of collection—had gone down because the Government were following the instructions given to them by the Opposition in the previous Parliament: that we should chase those from whom it is most difficult to obtain money and de-prioritise those from whom we can most easily get maintenance payments. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that?
      Mr. Burns: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says. However, in practice that need not be true, although there is certainly a danger that it may be. If the CSA is properly staffed and managed, the problem would not necessarily arise. It remains to be seen whether the reforms will work, but the Government maintain that the system will be so much simpler and so much more transparent than the old one that the previous problems in administering it will not occur. They argue that those who have to pay child maintenance will understand what they are being asked to pay and that the complicated formula that we set up—believing that it would be fairer on parents—will be cut away. The system should be easier.
      According to that argument, CSA staff should be able to handle their work load more easily because of the simplification and transparency of the system. A disproportionate amount of time and effort would not thus be spent on chasing the obstreperous or the non-payer. There would be a two-track system. It remains to be seen whether that happens—as with so many matters in the relatively short history of the CSA.
      However, we must lance the boil that has caused so much agony and antagonism among so many parents who have held out, delayed and refused to pay for such a long time. Even if the new clause needs some improvement—with Government help—it would be a positive step forward in improving the legislation.
      Mr. Steve Webb: Amendment No. 76, tabled by my hon. Friends and me, relates to the position
      354
      of women who do not want to name the father, and to their concerns about violence. That is an important issue on which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) hopes to speak if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker.
      In my contribution, I shall respond to the amendments and new clauses tabled by Conservative Members. They raise some important issues.
      The spirit of new clause 4 appears to touch that raw nerve about which we have all heard in our surgeries—the fathers who say, "I pay and I'm being chased, but I know someone else who doesn't pay a penny and he seems to be left alone." For the reasons that have been given—including the intervention of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)—the new clause is problematic. How will the prioritisation work? Would people who paid something be left alone, and would that cause problems? It is hard to see how that form of words would work.
      However, the Conservatives raised one general issue to which I should like to hear the Minister's response. What are the targets set for the agency? As with so many Government targets, do they distort priorities in a way that we would not want? Just as the infant class size target has distorted junior class sizes, and just as the in-patient waiting list target has distorted out-patient waiting lists, is there a danger that targets expressed in amounts of maintenance collected will distort by encouraging the CSA to chase those who are most easy to chase?
      4.15 pm
      I am genuinely uncertain about the targets and incentives that the CSA is set. Will the Minister assure the House that such incentives will encourage the CSA to chase non-payers—such as one requiring it to increase the percentage of people who are paying any amount—as much as they do to increase total maintenance collected? I hope that she can offer that reassurance. In the absence of such provision, the problem that the Conservatives have raised will continue. Many fathers who are doing their best to pay legitimately feel that others are getting away with doing nothing.
      New clause 5 refers to deduction of earnings orders. I did not catch much reference to its aims in the speech of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). I am not entirely clear what it would achieve. I would be happy to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman if he wants to elaborate on the matter.
      Mr. Pickles: The new clause simply tries to improve the way in which deduction of earnings orders are levied. It is no more complicated than that.
      Mr. Webb: I am grateful; I had assumed that, although how it would do so is still not clear to me.
      My main concerns relate to amendment No. 89 and the long list of seemingly draconian measures to pursue non-payers. I notice the term "curfew" popping up and various other quite serious penalties for non-payment. I find myself asking in what respect is child support debt different from other debt. That is a fundamental question. Most of the specific penalties, such as the withdrawal of driving licences and the imposition of curfews, that we are introducing for child support debt would not apply to any other debt.

      355
      If I, as a tenant, owed a former landlord some money, I could be pursued through the courts by a deduction of earnings order and various other measures, but he could not apply to the court to put me under a curfew. Why would someone owing money in one sphere be subject to draconian attacks on liberties when someone owing money in another sphere would not be so? I am not sure that child support debt is different in substance, which is why I have reservations about the application of such penalties only to such debt.
      It could be argued that the taxpayer has an interest. If so, there may be a case for restricting the imposition of such severe penalties to cases that result in the public purse losing out—although there is no indication of that in the amendment. I am not convinced that the case has been made for those very severe penalties to be applied peculiarly to child support debt. No argument has been made that it is so different from other debt. I am sure that we would not want to apply such sentences to other debt.
      We very much sympathise with the spirit of new clause 4. Although its provisions would not work practically, we would like to hear from the Minister an assurance that the agency's targets recognise the genuine public concern about people who do not pay and give it an incentive to chase such people just as hard.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives will be able to address our concerns about women who fear violence.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: I shall address the point raised by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb): in what way does the offence of owning child support debt differ from offences of owing other debt? I would say that the difference is this: child support debt is the most unnatural of crimes. We are talking of people who are not prepared to make provision for their own children. Therefore, I entirely understand the Government's desire to impose such strange punishments as the withdrawal of driving licences. I entirely understand the motive that lies behind the introduction of a new order of penalty to deal with a specific and unnatural crime.
      My difficulty with the penalty is that it introduces a new principle into our criminal justice system. In this country, the penalties available to punish miscreants are generally understood. The principal ones are the deprivation of liberty, the deprivation of finance through fines and the deprivation of time through the imposition of community service orders. Withdrawing a driving licence is of a different order because the penalty would not effect everyone in the same way that the deprivation of liberty or the removal of finance or time does. Some people who owe child support debt do not possess a driving licence or own a car. Therefore, the ability to withdraw a driving licence would affect them differentially from other people. It would have no impact on them at all.
      I prefer amendment No. 89 because it would provide a menu of penalties that would affect the miscreants in a way that is appropriate and consistent across the board. We had this discussion in Committee when we debated benefit withdrawal and the Government quite rightly responded to our suggestions that we should withdraw benefit by saying, "Ah, but what about those people who do not receive benefit? They would be affected
      356
      differentially. That would be unfair and unjust." I suggest that exactly the same argument applies to the desire to withdraw a driving licence. The menu of penalties in amendment No. 89 is far preferable.
      Mr. Andrew George: My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) spoke to amendment No. 76 and, depending on the Minister's response, I wish to flag up our desire to hold open the possibility of pressing that amendment to a separate vote.
      The benefit penalty applicable to parents with care who refuse to divulge information about a former partner has been set at 40 per cent. for a number of years and it can apply to someone for an indefinite period. As I understand it, the Government intend to continue that approach. The amendment would restore the position to what it was when the benefit penalty for non-disclosure was a 20 per cent. maximum reduction for the first six months and a 10 per cent. maximum reduction for the ensuing 12 months with no possibility of extension beyond the total 18-month period.
      There are several arguments against the withdrawal of benefit at a 40 per cent. rate. I welcome the Government's general claims and their obvious commitment to prioritising the ending of domestic violence, but they seemed determined that women who seek to avoid domestic violence should be coerced into financial dependence on violent partners. Amendment No. 71 has to be read in conjunction with amendment No. 81, which we shall debate later. I appreciate that the Minister objects to my comments, but matters of deep concern are involved. Assurances given by Ministers need to be deepened to reassure the many organisations concerned about domestic violence that the CSA will be able to deal effectively, robustly and sensitively with these difficult issues.
      Mr. Swayne: We rehearsed those arguments in Committee, but I fear that the amendment in the hon. Gentleman's name would let off the hook the worst category of father: those who threaten physical violence. By providing that means of escape, we are accommodating the problem rather than trying to tackle it.
      Mr. George: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments. It is a question of getting the balance right. Many domestic violence cases lead to the murder of women, but there are also organisations that, rightly, campaign on a broad front to ensure that women do not make malicious and trumped-up allegations to avoid the father having contact, although I realise that that point is different from the one made by the hon. Gentleman.
      How many more murders resulting from domestic violence need to take place before people appreciate the need to tighten up the legislation further? I hope that we will explore this argument a little more in the debate on amendment No. 81. Men may make violent threats in an attempt to get out of their responsibilities, but violent threats are followed through with tragic results, as we have seen far too often.
      Amendment No. 76 is an anti-poverty amendment, and has to be read alongside amendment No. 81. There are four strong arguments against the Government's proposal for a benefit penalty. First, it will push children into poverty. The case is as simple and clear-cut as that.

      357
      A 40 per cent. reduction in benefit for a single parent pushes the family's income 40 per cent. below the income support level. How does the Minister view that in the light of the Government's honourable efforts in establishing the social exclusion unit and their key priority to reduce and remove childhood poverty? The proposal will clearly work against that.
      The proposal will penalise the children whom the child support system is designed to support. If a low-income family loses income, everybody in the family suffers. The Government will be unable to prevent the parent with care from intentionally or unintentionally making the child bear the burden of that income loss. These are the people who can least afford to lose income. Two thirds of children in one-parent families in the UK are poor, compared with a quarter of children in two-parent families. Income support is set at a level that is supposed to be the absolute minimum for survival, but the Government propose to push families below that level.
      Secondly, and equally importantly, non-disclosure is not necessarily an indication that the parent with care is taking money on the quiet from the non-resident parent. Although there will be fraud in the system, it is wrong to approach the issue on the assumption that everybody who, by commission or omission, does not fit into the normative scenario is on the fiddle. The Government have never produced evidence to support that assumption.
      Thirdly, there is no evidence that the punitive approach has succeeded. The last increase in the severity and length of the benefit penalty was accompanied by a significant increase in non-compliance. The penalty particularly hits lone parents who believe, for whatever reason, that it is not in the interests of their children to co-operate with the CSA. Slapping a benefit penalty on them is unlikely to change their minds; it will drive them further away from the system.
      4.30 pm
      I shall cite two case studies in support of my argument. The first involves a lone parent who suffers agoraphobia and depression as a result of repeated assaults by her ex-husband, to whom she was married for 10 years. She also suffers from dyslexia. Until she sought advice, she was completely unaware that there were any exemptions from the requirement to co-operate. Her ex-husband still has some contact with the children, but she is terrified of him. She receives incapacity benefit and income support. Although she received several letters from the CSA, she did not respond to any of them because she was frightened and depressed; as a result, however, she was threatened with a benefit penalty. With the help of an adviser, she won her case at a tribunal, even though initially she was reluctant to appeal because she was too afraid.
      In the second case, a lone parent with two sons, aged six and eight, was notified that a benefit penalty would be imposed because the CSA did not accept that she was exempt. She had been threatened by her ex-partner, who told her that, if she co-operated with the CSA, he would withdraw contact with the children. Her sons had suffered badly from his previously having withdrawn contact for one year; they had exhibited signs of intense distress. The woman had only just re-established that contact. She argues that her children are at risk of undue distress,
      358
      but that argument has been rejected by the CSA. She is now in turmoil, taking antidepressants, while awaiting an appeal against the benefit penalty.
      The system causes hardship to the very children whom it is meant to support. Children in one-parent families are among the poorest in the land, and their parents can ill afford to lose a significant proportion of the already small sum on which they are expected to live. That is why we tabled our amendment.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): I shall try to deal with the issues as they were raised during the debate. They are quite wide ranging, but I shall do my best.
      New clause 4 is designed to influence the way in which the CSA organises its resources in respect of collection and enforcement activities. The agency would have to take action against non-resident parents who have made no child support maintenance payments, who comprise 30 per cent. of the current case load, before turning to those who are partially compliant, who comprise 23 per cent. of the case load. I understand why the Opposition have been motivated to set out such priorities.
      My argument has already been touched on by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns): the solution lies in the simplification of the CSA's business and process that the Bill will bring about. Under the current, complex formula, the CSA spends 90 per cent. of its time on collection and only 10 per cent. on enforcement. Under the new system, much more of the CSA's time will be spent on proper enforcement of maintenance agreements, once they are reached.
      Mr. Burns: Is there not a problem with relying on good nature and the simplicity of the system? No matter how much simpler the new system is to operate, if the parent who has to pay child maintenance does not like the amounts, he will attempt to avoid paying by delaying or employing some other method. There will still be a huge backlog because of resistance on the part of paying parents.
      Angela Eagle: There are fewer ways to stymie the new simplified system than there are to stymie the current complex formula. I cannot guarantee that there will never be a backlog, but we believe that, once the new formula is in place and the CSA is up and running at full speed, maintenance assessments will be made within four to six weeks, instead of the current six months.
      Mr. Burns: The Minister refers to the formula, but it will not stop those parents who think that they know how much they will have to pay having no contact with the CSA, replying to letters or demands for information by querying them or not supplying all the information, or not supplying accurate and correct information. Those problems will still remain, however simple the system is, if a group of people want deliberately to string out or avoid paying.
      Angela Eagle: Of course some things can be strung out. My argument with the new clause is that it creates a priority list that demonstrates to people that, if they pay something, however little, the CSA will leave them alone while it chases other people. I think that we can pick up everybody. Some people will be more obstructive than

      359
      others, but the changes to the system will give the CSA more space and time to focus on chasing those who, in the past, have got off scot-free. The old CSA got into many difficulties administering the formula that it had been given.
      Mr. Pickles: The Minister seems to suggest that the new clause represents the Opposition's policy. In fact, it reflects what was the Labour party's policy. Will she explain how the target of catching up with the 100,000 who are not making a contribution will be met? How will she target them? Surely she is not saying that the simplified formula alone, which we support, will achieve the target? People are avoiding making payments because they have no intention of doing so, and not because of the formula. If the hon. Lady will take us through how the target will be achieved, I am sure that we shall make rapid progress.
      Angela Eagle: The present system involves more than 100 different facts being established before a maintenance order can properly be calculated. Changes of circumstances happen so regularly that the assessment can virtually be out of date before it can be administered and notified to those who are responsible for paying it. The proposed formula is radically simpler. It will be necessary to establish the number of children and the income of the father, and then make a simple calculation. It will leave the CSA with much more time to pursue the more difficult cases.
      We want to ensure that non-resident parents will all meet their responsibilities for their children, and make regular and reliable payments of maintenance. We do not want to create perverse incentives to pay a little so that fathers are not chased for the rest, while people who have disappeared from the system—there will always be difficult cases in any system—are left to be pursued at length. That is not appropriate. Our priority is to ensure that all fathers make the proper payments.
      The provision proposed in new clause 5—
      Mr. Webb: I asked the Minister a specific question on new clause 4 about the agency's incentives and the targets that it is given. Presumably, targets are set to try to make the agency prioritise particular actions. Do the agency's targets encourage it to pursue non-payers?
      Angela Eagle: The targets relate not to the amounts of maintenance paid but to the speed and accuracy of assessment, which is the main work that the CSA does with 90 per cent. of its time and to case and cash compliance. With the new system, we shall be able to take a completely new look at how the targets operate. Clearly, we would not wish to establish targets that would create incentives for odd results. I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point.
      We are asked in new clause 5 to put in place a provision that already exists in section 31 of the Child Support Act 1991, which allows for a deduction from earnings order to be made in respect of the current maintenance liability, plus an amount for arrears. About 98 per cent. of the almost 130,000 deductions from earnings orders in force cover arrears as well as current liability. Those figures are from November last year, and are our most recent ones. New clause 5 is unnecessary because what is sought is already done.
      360
      We all know that the complexities of the current formula leave the agency with little time for collecting maintenance, which is why a radical simplification has been brought before the House.
      Amendment No. 76 would reduce and time-limit reduced benefit decisions. Because of the way in which it is drafted, it would also reduce the benefit of the parent with care by 20 per cent. of the whole. The 40 per cent. reduction in place relates only to the adult applicable allowance, so the proposed 20 per cent. represents a higher proportion.
      Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), one would think that good cause did not exist, but it does and it works effectively. If there are cases around the edge that he wishes to bring to my attention, we shall examine them.
      The plain fact is that if a woman suspects that, by engaging the CSA, she may be in danger of violent behaviour from her ex-partner, that constitutes good cause. There is no way that the CSA will pursue maintenance if she can show good cause for its not pursuing it.
      The issue of sanctions and reduced benefit decisions involves parents with care who refuse to get the CSA involved, and are happy for the taxpayer to pay for the upkeep of their children, without good cause. In other words, they are not in danger of a violent reaction from their ex-partners. The benefit deductions are designed to persuade those people to come into the system.
      We do not believe that payment of child support should be optional, and that people should be able to choose. That is partly to protect the taxpayer. It ought to be the exception, rather than the rule, that child support is not in payment.
      Mr. Swayne: Where it is shown that there is good cause, is that not a matter for referral to the police for investigation? It cannot be left that someone should get off, just by making such a threat.
      Angela Eagle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman absolutely. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour, and we should not kowtow to it by setting up a system that seems to create incentives for people to behave in that way. I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman made in his earlier intervention.
      When the good cause definitions were changed from 10 and 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. in 1996, 70 per cent. of parents with care initially claimed that they had good cause not to co-operate with the CSA. That point has been raised more than once by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
      Parents have a responsibility to support their children. The benefits system should step in only when they are unable to do so. Child support should not be optional. The underlying purpose of a reduced benefit direction is to encourage parents with care to apply for child support, unless they have good reason or good cause not to do so.
      We believe that a benefit penalty of 40 per cent. of the adult applicable amount in income support, which is not the whole amount of benefit and certainly not that which would be allocated for the children, is set at the right level to achieve that.

      361
      About 85 per cent. of parents with care claiming benefit co-operate with the CSA in seeking maintenance, which compares with only 30 per cent. who used to co-operate. This total turn-around, which has occurred in a very short time and is an extremely positive development, is due in part to the improved closer working arrangements between the Benefits Agency and the Child Support Agency. It is a real achievement.
      Since April 1999, Benefits Agency staff assist new income support clients in completing maintenance application forms where appropriate. That means that clients need give information to the Department only once. However, the fact remains that some parents with care refuse to co-operate with the agency without good cause, so we need to retain a meaningful penalty provision. It would be unfair on children if we did not impose sanctions on parents with care who unreasonably prevent—I stress, unreasonably prevent—the recovery of child support.
      We are very conscious of the need to protect vulnerable parents and their children. As I said earlier, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the parent with care or any child living with her would suffer harm or undue distress as a result of pursuing child support, no penalty will be imposed.
      Mr. George: Prior to the improvement in the CSA's record, how many of the parents not co-operating with the CSA were claiming good cause?
      4.45 pm
      Angela Eagle: I do not know the figures off the top of my head, but I shall give them to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.
      I was about to share with the House the drop, as a percentage of case load, in the number of people on reduced benefit directions. That has come down from 19 per cent. in 1997–98 to 9 per cent. now, and we hope to bring it down even further.
      In Committee, Opposition Members tabled an amendment proposing that the courts should be able to impose a curfew or a community service order for refusal to pay child support maintenance, with which I had some sympathy, and I agreed to see whether we could frame amendments to achieve that aim. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) has the letter that I sent to him after careful, not perfunctory, consideration. I was anxious to see whether that could be done.
      Unfortunately, sanctions such as curfews or community service orders are penalties for criminal offences and non-payment of child support is a civil issue. Extending the Bill as Opposition Members suggest would mean importing into the civil system all the legislative and operational arrangements that apply to the criminal courts. For example, probation officers would have to provide pre-sentencing reports and the mechanics surrounding electronic tagging where private sector firms are appointed to monitor the arrangements.
      The effect of that would be to superimpose on the civil system virtually all the penalties available in the criminal courts, and we would lose the distinction between magistrates sitting in their civil and criminal capacities.
      362
      We considered the matter carefully, but we could find no way to legislate for such penalties without superimposing the criminal system on the civil system.
      Mr. Burns: It may assist the hon. Lady if I draw to her attention the precedent of curfews imposed in certain parts of our towns and cities to keep young people off the streets at night. I understand that that has been done under the civil, not the criminal, law.
      Angela Eagle: That is not my information, but I shall check.
      Mr. Swayne: Given what I describe as the unnatural nature of what I believe is a crime—the determination not to make a financial provision for one's own offspring—would it not be appropriate for the hon. Lady to impose a criminal penalty when the Bill is reintroduced in the other place?
      Angela Eagle: That is the hon. Gentleman's view, but I have looked at the matter carefully and I do not think that it would be appropriate to make non-payment of child support a criminal offence. I shall explain why.
      Criminal sanctions are about punishment. Child support is about doing what is best for children and encouraging fathers to pay maintenance and, hopefully, in most circumstances, to play a full part in their children's lives. That would not be achieved by criminalising the non-payment of child support. The downside of that outweighs the positive effects that the hon. Gentleman outlines. I realise that people might have a different view, but that is the view that I take.
      Mr. Pickles: I recognise that the hon. Lady understands the benefits of such a measure and rejects it reluctantly, but will she confirm that taking away a driving licence is an alternative to imprisonment? If so, I do not understand the difference between imprisoning someone and imposing a curfew order. As the hon. Lady supports our objective, she must have received legal advice, so perhaps she would share it with us.
      Angela Eagle: Clearly, the courts have to decide when someone comes before them whether he or she has culpably and neglectfully—I think that those are the words used in the legislation—declined to pay child support, so there must be on-going evidence of complete non-co-operation and refusal to accept responsibility. It is then up to the courts to determine the penalty: removing the driving licence or the ultimate sanction of committal to prison. Evidence from other countries and jurisdictions shows that removing a driving licence is an effective method of getting child support maintenance paid. We look forward to approving that when the sanction becomes available to the courts. However, it will be up to the courts to decide whether to effect it in every case.
      I appreciate that Conservative Members are trying to be helpful in tabling the new clause; I genuinely tried to be helpful in seeking ways of including its substance that had no major implications for the criminal and civil court system. I could not do that, but I am glad that there is so much cross-party support for our aim of helping to eradicate child poverty by ensuring that all parents support their children.

      363
      I ask hon. Members to reject new clauses 4 and 5 and amendments Nos. 79 and 89 for the reasons that I outlined. Government amendment No. 40 would make technical changes to clause 16, which introduces a new civil penalty and gives the courts the power to disqualify a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a driving licence when child support is not paid. It clarifies that the courts are required to notify the Secretary of State or, as he directs, the Drivers and Vehicle Licensing Agency when a disqualification order has been made, amended or lifted.
      Mr. Burns: Would someone's driving licence be taken away in lieu of paying the money, or would it be an additional penalty to bring pressure on the person to pay? I hope that it is the latter.
      Angela Eagle: It is not in lieu of paying the money. The simple way of retaining one's driving licence is to pay before the courts decide to take it away. We hope that that will be the penalty's DRIVE—Development of Rural Initiative, Venture and Enterprise [Wales] DVLA Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, effect. However, if payment continues not to be made, the courts can make another disqualification order.
      Mr. Field: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Does the Bill provide for offices to use the driving licence centre as a way of tracing individuals? If the driving licence is in the relevant individual's name, can the make of car he used as evidence about life style? I appreciate that the question moves the debate on, but I could not envisage another opportunity of raising the matter.
      Angela Eagle: As always, my right hon. Friend is creative in his questions. I suspect that the answer is yes, but I want to check some data protection matters and be confident that I am right before issuing a ringing yes.
      Mr. Pickles: The Minister has been very courteous. We got rather excited about the Bill in Committee and spent much time on curfew orders. We did not ask a question that perhaps we should have asked. Will the driving licence be removed for a period or until the debt is paid? Before the driving licence is restored, would the person have to resit a test?
      Angela Eagle: I can answer a ringing no to the last question. The maximum period will be up to two years. However, the courts will consider specific circumstances when they decide whether to apply the penalty.
      Mr. Pickles: The second part of my three-pipe question is, if the person repays the debt, will he receive the driving licence back immediately?
      Angela Eagle: Yes, answered ringingly.
      Mr. Swayne rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am not sure whether the Minister has concluded.
      Angela Eagle: I have.
      Mr. Pickles: Our discussion has been good and fair. Our new clause raises an important point. We share the view of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that we want an understanding about targets. When the Labour party was in opposition, it was clear that it would target non-payers. The Minister says, fairly and reasonably, that the new system will try to avoid spending 90 per cent. of the time on assessment, although we shall come to aspects of that which might make that statement appear a little bold, certainly at face value. I hope that she does not take offence, but I do not believe that the Government have given no thought to the new targets—which do not relate to assessment—and it would have been helpful to discuss targeting people who have made no contribution.
      There is general agreement around the Chamber that we should go after such people and no sympathy on either side of the House for those who say, "I've paid a couple of quid a month so the CSA will leave me alone." There is a general test of reasonableness in that. We may probe some more, perhaps in the other place, but I emphasise that these are Labour's own targets. They were not merely thrown together. Non-payers are Labour's No. 1 target and the Government are going for them more than anything else so it is disappointing—I put it no more strongly than that—that they have not said how they will achieve that.
      The Minister says that it would not be possible to implement amendment No. 89, our other major proposal. She thought it a good idea in the excitement in Committee, but does not seem terribly keen now. She says that it is complex and would involve probation officers' reports and this, that and the other, but I hope that she will have another word with the lawyers. If someone is to be sent to prison, reports have to be obtained. Our judicial system does not throw somebody in jail without making pre-sentencing inquiries.
      Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that people go to prison for civil offences. A person can be sent to prison without the whole criminal justice system being imported to the procedure that leads to imprisonment.
      Mr. Pickles: I am aware of that. I am not being highly critical and, when I received the Minister's letter, I did not thump on her door and say, "You are being extremely unreasonable." However, we need to consider that matter.
      Mr. Swayne: Will my hon. Friend give way on the question of unreasonableness?
      Mr. Pickles: Yes.
      Mr. Swayne: It might be unfair to ask my hon. Friend this question, but the Minister sat down before I could ask it of her. If two individuals in identical circumstances had the same amount of debt, but one had no driving licence and the other had and that was withdrawn by the court, what compensating penalty would be imposed on the other, given that he would have no driving licence to withdraw? Would he be thrown in prison? Would that not be a penalty for not possessing a driving licence? In the interests of equity, we need answers to those questions.
      Mr. John Bercow: He would lose his bus pass.
      Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is a tough man, as always,

      365
      and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) suggests that such a person would lose his bus pass. He almost certainly would not, but my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West was not making a jocular point because there is a great discrepancy in the Bill. There is a difference between a light tap and a heavy penalty, and we seek a degree of grading.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) raised a legitimate point. She said, "If the Conservatives are right, the great panoply of the criminal law will be imposed on a simple matter." However, we are not saying that. We are considering what the Prime Minister has said. Curfew orders are straightforward and concern the release of a prisoner into the wider community. When a prisoner is released, various procedures are necessary: for instance, probation reports must be received.
      5 pm
      The Prime Minister is saying, "The orders have been quite successful; let us transfer them to other offences." The offences that the Government have identified are domestic violence, which is clearly criminal, and stalking, which is also clearly criminal. However, they are now considering extending such orders to the Child Support Agency. As the Minister said, we are not talking about those who are a bit behind with their contributions; we are talking about the person who says, "I do not care how many demands I receive. I am not going to pay."
      If the Minister thinks that curfew orders are not appropriate, other options should be considered before the Bill completes its passage in another place. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has suggested putting people's credit rating on their credit cards; other civil measures may be possible. What we are saying is that the penalties must contain a gradable element. If the legislation is to have teeth, it cannot be all or nothing: there must be something in between.
      I hope that the Minister will take a long hard look at possible civil penalties, because the Government's proposals are not satisfactory. The measure involving driving licences is not sufficient by itself. I do not mean to be hurtful, but putting that measure on its own into the Bill makes it look ridiculous—and no legislation that aims to make people meet their responsibilities can afford to look ridiculous.
      I hope that the Government will consider what I have said, and what improvements might be made in another place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 27

      CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY: QUALITY STANDARD GUARANTEE
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, set a target time within which the Child Support Agency shall deal with all cases referred to it.
      (2) Regulations under subsection (1) above shall require the CSA to pay compensation to the person aggrieved when it fails to meet its obligations in respect of the target time; and shall set out the level of compensation payable.'.—[Mr. Pickles.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Pickles: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      366
      Again, I do not want to be hurtful, but I think it fair to say that the CSA has not enjoyed the best of records in terms of reliability. In general, Members of Parliament are not specialists—we are jacks of all trades and masters of none—but one issue on which we have firm views is that of the CSA. Every Friday or Saturday, when we hold our constituency surgeries, someone arrives with something from the CSA. People either have a lot of little envelopes that have to be put in order, or, worse, they have put all the material in a big ring binder, and one's heart sinks.
      I must add that I think there that has been an improvement. The CSA has made an effort. It has improved enormously in terms of answering the telephone, and—I am speaking for myself here—I have always found its officials to be tireless and diligent. I recognise that they have been operating in difficult circumstances.
      Mr. Bercow: You are not making a confession.
      Mr. Pickles: We must speak as we find. Others may have experienced difficulty, but I have always found the CSA's officials to be very polite.
      Mr. BercowMy point was simple. Will my hon. Friend confirm that his dealings with the agency have been on behalf of constituents and not, as it were, to plough his own furrow?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The rules of the House are simple, too: comments from a sedentary position are not helpful.
      Mr. Pickles: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham was making a joke. I am sure that the time will come when I will be able to laugh at it. Of course I contacted the CSA on behalf of my constituents. I thank him for making that clear.
      The new clause is about empowering the citizen. It will demonstrate to the citizen that something will happen if a mistake is made. There are important reasons for seeking to introduce the measure. It is a question of the Government putting our money where their mouth is. We have heard the Minister suggest that everything will be hunky-dory in the new system because the CSA will not spend its time going through the various forms, or making an assessment: it will be more about collections, so everything will speed up. We are not quite as convinced that we are about to gallop to sunlit uplands.
      The Government predict that everything will be fine. We think that, under the new system that will come into operation, unless the Government make significant changes, the CSA will be swamped. The level of applications will increase significantly.
      The reason is straightforward. The reforms will dig deep into middle England. We know that that land is much beloved of the Prime Minister. We know that Labour Back Benchers are keen to say, "What about our heartland? You have to stop pandering to middle England and start to look after our heartland." The Bill is not the place to start the great revolutionary march back to the heartlands. It is about filling our surgeries again with a new set of people, who have never dreamt of having any dealings with the CSA. There were enormous protests last time, but, in the words of the great Al Jolson, "You ain't seen nothing yet."

      367
      If the Government are right, there will be no problem with the new clause because few people will claim, but there will be a move to non-benefit cases. If there is no benefit case, the parties can reach an agreement without interference from the CSA. That is reasonable and sensible. The state will have no particular financial interest, other than the normal and reasonable collection of taxes.
      However, once the Bill becomes an Act, 14 months' notice from the parent with care to the non-resident parent is all that is required, and then the CSA can suddenly take over the case. That is why the whole process will be swamped. The CSA will be a weapon in the fight between ex-spouses or ex-partners. We do not find that desirable. That is why people will need the redress that the new clause offers. We also envisage that it will create transfers between spouses by stealth, and that does not seem reasonable.
      In other words, the provision will give a bonus to parents with care and enable them to get the maximum settlement. It might be a clean-break settlement as far as the spouses are concerned, but it can never be a clean break in respect of the children. There could be a considerable transfer of financial resources between the spouses, so the provision would give a distinct advantage to the parent with care. For instance, having received transferred resources, the parent with care could then go to the CSA and ask for an assessment. Despite previous transfers of wealth, the non-resident parent would be subject to another assessment. That is why the CSA could represent a big bonus to the parent with care. We never wanted that to happen, and no doubt nor do the Government, but the potential is there.
      The system will be swamped as a result of the nature of the proposed changes. They include fixed bands that replace a fairly complex process of assessment. As I have told the Minister on the Floor of the House and in Committee, we support that proposal. However, there will also be a reduction in the number of variations or departures from the scheme. The new clause is necessary because, in many ways, the provision replicates a mistake by the previous Conservative Administration. We recognise that we made a mistake.
      Mr. Swayne: One of the problems that we examined in Committee was the fear that there would be a growing number of variations as a consequence of the simplicity of the new formula. Would not the addition of new clause 27 provide a powerful incentive for the Government to keep up the pressure by means of a performance measure?
      Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is half right. As he says, the new clause would provide a sensible performance measure and it would be helpful in that respect. However, as my hon. Friend said most powerfully in Committee, the demand for additional variations will not come from within the CSA or from the House; it is more likely to result from public disquiet and unhappiness. In a reasonable world, the new clause might operate as a check on the Government but, as we sought to demonstrate, it would at least provide an early warning of what might go wrong, and that is desirable.
      Before my hon. Friend intervened, I was about to don a hair shirt and apologise, so I shall do so now. We made a mistake when we made changes to the CSA. Although we introduced lots of departures and variations—
      368
      depending on whether one reads the Bill or the Act—and that was sensible, we retained a fairly complex system of assessment. The Government propose a simplified, three-band system of assessment and we support that, but they also intend to reduce the number of variations. That cannot be sensible. It is a mirror image of the mistake that we made. There should be a simplified system of assessment, but a greater number of variations than the Government propose. That would temper the rough justice that the Government would otherwise impose.
      I have received a transcript of a talk given by Mr. Nicholas Mostyn QC—
      Kali Mountford: Not him again.
      Mr. Pickles: I have no doubt that Mr. Mostyn—one of the country's leading family law Queen's counsels—will be most gratified to receive that accolade of "Not him again".
      The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Same old stuff.
      Mr. Pickles: Mr. Mostyn's speech was given, to Manches and Co., on 7 March 2000, and is therefore quite recent. The Minister therefore cannot say that it is the same old stuff. It is new stuff, and he should pay some attention. [Interruption.] We will come to that in a few moments. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to be doing the knitting by the tumbrels. The Bill is about ensuring that there is maintenance for children, not about redistribution of wealth. I think that the Under-Secretary had better contain herself a little.
      5.15 pm
      Nicholas Mostyn said:
      It seems to me if you are going to make the formula more simple you must make your departures wider. You can't make the formula more arbitrary and then cut down the grounds on which you seek departure.
      That seems to be a very fair assessment.
      Labour Members—in their "not him again" mode—will perhaps want to hear something more to their taste. In "Children First: Reforming Child Support", published in October 1996, just a few months before the Government's general election victory, they talked about
      increasing the grounds on which an appeal can be made to include complaints not only against assessment itself, but against failures in the administrative process that led to it.
      New clause 27 would achieve precisely that.
      The new clause seeks to ensure that, if people are aggrieved, they do not have to wait a month to receive a reply. It would provide a way of ensuring that matters are dealt with. I do not know why the Minister of State should be so unhappy about that. The new clause will make the whole system run better. I do not see why the Government are getting themselves all upset about it.
      When we were debating the Bill in Committee, if anything made the Government more likely to accept a proposal, it was the idea that it would improve administrative convenience. The new clause is all about administrative convenience. The new clause will implement Labour's intention, and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Field: Reading new clause 27, I thought that I agreed with it. However, after listening to the speech of

      369
      the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), I am not sure that I do. However, I should like to add my weight to the Government's position—that it is crucial that we have a much more simplified formula and that we do not grant many exceptions to that simple formula. That is how our tax system runs, and it works well. There is agreement across the country on our tax system. The last thing that we want is more departures from a simplified formula. We are moving towards a formula that people understand, and part of that understanding is that there will be some rough justice.
      I hope that, after we have meandered through our debate, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the clause—which in good nature and good faith could be considered in another place. I suggest that, if the proposal is not voted on today, but is considered in another place, we might consider creating a statutory requirement that maintenance payments should occur only after the errors have been put right. The hon. Gentleman is lucky in that he has only one person staggering in per surgery to complain. In Birkenhead, there are four of five people with shopping bags full of papers from the CSA. There may be cases where an individual has done all in his power to present the proper information, and it is found, much later, that the CSA has made a miscalculation or an error in computing maintenance, and the new maintenance bill, taking into account that error, is backdated to the period when the error was discovered and then presented to my constituent. In those circumstances, it is proper for taxpayers to meet the bill, and not individual constituents.
      Mr. Andrew George: I welcome the spirit of the new clause. It is reasonable to introduce targets and appropriate compensation, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out. Clearly, his surgeries mirror my own. This is the area that has caused the most frustration and difficulty for constituents and Members of Parliament.
      I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the time period for targets, but there is a question mark over the point at which the target period effectively kicks in; in other words, when it can be agreed that all the evidence required by the CSA has been received, as that is often a cause of debate between the CSA and the client.
      Mr. Field: I was not arguing that so much. In circumstances where a constituent receives a letter stating that the CSA has discovered that, two years ago, it made a mistake in computing the maintenance, and presenting the constituent with the back payment that he owes, we want the Bill to ensure that our constituent does not pick up the bill and that the CSA does.
      Mr. George: I was making a point in addition to that point, with which I entirely agree. The backdating claims, and the resulting heavy burden upon many constituents as a result of errors made by the CSA, are pertinent points. These lie alongside the arguments made effectively by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). Whether the hon. Gentleman seeks to push the new clause to a vote, or seeks simply to probe the matter, he will find strong support from my party.
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: When I was first elected, a great many people came to my surgeries to
      370
      complain about the CSA—not only about its mistakes, but about calculations that were not done and about cases dragging on and on. It may be dangerous to say this, but I find that there are fewer cases coming to my surgeries now.
      In view of that, I hope that we are not being premature with some of the changes that we are making in the Bill, which undoubtedly creates a system of rough justice. Many changes in the Bill are to be welcomed, but we may come to regret creating such a system.
      Mr. Swayne: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the targets set out in the new clause are not necessary because the administrative situation has improved so much? If that is so, is the Bill necessary at all?
      Mr. Robertson: I am not quite saying that, but my hon. Friend's question leads to an interesting point. I hope that I may test your patience slightly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by drawing an analogy—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It occurred to me that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was directing the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) more accurately to the substance of the amendment than his own opening remarks suggested. I allowed the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman some licence to put the background to the new clause, but I cannot allow the same licence to other hon. Members.
      Mr. Robertson: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for your guidance, and to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest. West (Mr. Swayne). I had not appreciated how helpful he was being.
      Mr. Swayne: I am here to help.
      Mr. Robertson: In view of that advice, I shall turn straight to the detail of new clause 27.
      Angela Eagle: Very wise.
      Mr. Robertson: I am sure that it is wise to do so.
      I support new clause 27, which would be very useful. It would concentrate the minds of those at the CSA charged with ensuring that money finds its way to parents with care so that children are helped, and with ensuring that people are not charged unfairly. The performance measures that the new clause could be said to be introducing would be very effective.
      Target times are all well and good, but we must be aware that in some circumstances it might not be possible to meet such a target. The reasons may be outside the CSA's control—for example, it may not be possible to get the relevant information. When that happens, it would be far better to extend the time a little than to drop the case and allow the costs already incurred to fall to the taxpayer. That is not something that I support.
      I am in favour of the new clause, but I think that we must keep something of an open mind about the possibility that the time limit might have to be extended sometimes. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) spoke about empowering people, and the new clause would empower people to receive what they are entitled to. In that way the taxpayer would

      371
      be relieved of the burden. The new clause would also mean that the non-resident parent—the one who does the paying—would receive the justice that he deserves.
      All hon. Members know that delays cause many problems, and mean that parents with care and their children have to live without support. In the cases that I have dealt with, many problems have been caused by arrears building up, and the compensation provided for in new clause 27 might well have to be set against those arrears.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sure that all hon. Members appreciate his balanced presentation of the case, but does he agree that new clause 27 is desirable, on its own account and because it would establish more widely the principle that compensation should be paid in the event of malfeasance?
      Mr. Robertson: I entirely agree. In many cases, compensation, had it been paid, would have relieved greatly the suffering of aggrieved parents, regardless of which side of the argument they were on.
      Introducing time limits could prevent some of the problems that can be encountered. The threat of violence between the parties was mentioned earlier. I do not suggest that the new clause would remove such threats, but recognising and dealing quickly with them would lessen the risk of violence. There would also be less risk that people would disappear into the community and never having to pay a penny for their children. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that we can have a cessation of the chat lines going on between hon. Members on the Government Benches. I am trying to listen to the debate.
      Mr. Robertson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that hon. Members do not find my remarks terribly interesting, but they may come to be seen as important.
      A time limit would also simplify the system. If people are aware that the CSA means business and that it will sort out a case in X number of weeks, they might be more prepared to provide information, especially when they realise that compensation might be payable.
      I understand what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said about compensation being paid for by the taxpayer. Would the Government also consider, in certain cases, asking for compensation from a party who has withheld information? I accept that that may be going slightly wide of the new clause, but it might be a way of preventing problems from arising in the first place.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friends have been eloquent in detailing the problems that Members of Parliament are faced with in their surgeries consequent upon the delays of the Child Support Agency. However, I think that their expectations of the impact of the new clause are rather exaggerated. In many respects, the problems are insoluble. When the CSA is confronted with those problems, it stands between two warring parties who have come to hate one another and who acknowledge no sense of
      372
      contributory negligence in having chosen one another as partners in the procreation of children. We have to escape from the notion in the new clause that there should be a measure of customer satisfaction with the Child Support Agency. In many respects, such expectations cannot be met.
      Mr. Pickles: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is entirely right. The new clause offers an early warning system that things are not going right at the Child Support Agency. One of the earliest signs that the agency is getting swamped and things are going wrong is the length of time that staff take to reply to letters or make assessments.
      Mr. Swayne: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I began my remarks by saying what I think that the new clause would not achieve, despite some people's expectations. I now wish to deal with what the new clause would achieve, which my hon. Friend has drawn to our attention. Undoubtedly, many of the problems that compound the irritation and frustration of our constituents arise purely out of an administrative rather than a social problem. Part of that has undoubtedly been the lack of resources that have been made available to the agency. The Parliamentary Commissioner drew attention to that in reports to the House.
      It must be acknowledged that there has been a huge improvement in the agency's performance, measured by the number of cases that have been referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner, which is sharply down, and the number of cases referred to Members of Parliament. Nevertheless, one of the principal purposes of the Bill, as we are constantly told, is to streamline the administrative process because the existing process is far too cumbersome. I see that the Minister nods her head. Given that one of the Bill's principal purposes is to achieve that administrative streamlining and, as a consequence, deliver a measure of justice that the existing system simply cannot deliver, it seems appropriate to have some means of measuring the effectiveness of that administrative improvement. The new clause provides precisely that mechanism.
      It is appropriate that we should demand such provisions, because time after time in Committee, when we attempted to ameliorate what Ministers correctly referred to as some of the rough justice of the Bill, we were told that, although our amendments were desirable in themselves, they could not be accepted because they undermined the overriding requirement to deliver administrative efficiency. If the purpose of the Bill is to do that, surely the pay-off must be the provisions in new clause 27.
      The Bill will, of course, deliver a much simpler system, but it will be a much rougher form of justice. As a consequence, it is proper to provide our constituents with a form of redress if the system continues to fall down and if its administrative procedures do not match up to expectations. That would provide an administrative incentive to the Department and to Ministers to ensure that the CSA is properly resourced and capable of delivering the administrative solution for which the Bill was designed.
      Mr. Pickles: The logical extension of my hon. Friend's argument is a point that I did not pursue. The provision

      373
      would offer Ministers, or those in control of the CSA, a week-by-week view—an early warning that things might go wrong; they would not have to wait months to find out through an appeal. People would have begun to receive money so everyone would already know that something had gone wrong.
      Mr. Swayne: That is correct. That mechanism must be built into the system because it is so manifestly lacking under the existing arrangements which the Bill attempts to remedy. In effect, the provision is a form of management information. To include that is not only correct, but would introduce an element of justice and redress that the Bill does not contain. Much of the Bill trades justice and fairness for administrative convenience—not for the benefit of the Department but for that of the taxpayer and, indeed, the customers of the CSA, for whom the present system is unfair and unjust because it is so complex.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend will have observed that subsection (2) of the new clause states that the "level of compensation payable" is to be set out in regulations consequent on the clause. Is it my hon. Friend's understanding that the levels—I think the plural is intended, or, if not, it would be appropriate—of compensation should be specified in the regulations, and that they should not be subject to the personal discretion or the administrative fiat of CSA staff?
      Mr. Swayne: That is true. The principle of natural justice should apply to those regulations. Customers should be compensated for the tort—the wrong—that they have suffered; the compensation should right the injustice. I would expect that to be set out in the regulations. If that element of natural justice is not included, the Bill will not be compliant with the European convention on human rights. Presumably, Ministers have taken advice and reflected on that matter.
      Mr. Bercow: That would never do.
      Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend is unfair. In Committee, we covered such matters exhaustively and Ministers provided some satisfaction on them.
      I share entirely the Ministers' objective, but the new clause is desirable not only on the ground of natural justice but because it would provide what I have called the pay-off for some of the compromises on fairness that we have made during proceedings on the Bill. We have sacrificed fairness for administrative streamlining, and it is therefore appropriate to insert this measure of redress.
      Angela Eagle: We need to bear in mind in our deliberations the fact that the Bill will undoubtedly deliver a simpler and more effective system of child support, and because of it, more than 1 million children will gain. We are all in favour of targets. The only thing that divides the Government and the Opposition in this debate is where and how they should be set and in what context.
      I thank Opposition Members who have observed that there have been some improvements in the Child Support Agency. It is true that there have been huge improvements in its attempts to deliver a very difficult administrative
      374
      system. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) mentioned the telephone answering service. I can tell the House that, in 1996, only 1 per cent. of calls were answered promptly—
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: If at all.
      Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right. That figure is now up to 70 per cent. Although all hon. Members have noticed some significant improvements, we know that there is a great deal more to do. Nobody is in favour of delays and arrears. We are all too familiar from our constituency postbags with the delays and poor service that the CSA, struggling with its current formula, can provide. The child support scheme has failed parents and children alike, and that is why we are revisiting the subject to try to get it right. Clearly, given our experience, it is our duty to bear administrative simplicity in mind when redesigning the system. The radical simplification of the way in which child support liability is assessed, by replacing the complex assessment formula with a straightforward one, will help a great deal.
      The new clause is unnecessary. In the reformed child support scheme, we expect the agency to make maintenance calculations within days and to get maintenance flowing in an average of four to six weeks rather than up to six months, as now. Clearly, by the time six months have elapsed, non-resident parents face difficulties having accrued arrears through no fault of their own.
      Mr. Pickles: Would it be fair to say that the hon. Lady is rejecting the new clause as unnecessary because delays will not occur under the new system?
      Angela Eagle: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall come on to explain why the new clause is unnecessary. I am disagreeing not with the requirement for targets but with the way in which the new clause would put them into effect and with some of the perverse effects that that would have. Indeed, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) pointed one out: if the agency had to ensure that all—that is the word used in the new clause—payments were made within a set time, regardless of how difficult a case might be, that might create a perverse incentive not to pursue some cases. Such cases would be bound not to fall within the target. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) mentioned some of the difficulties and sensitivities of setting targets fairly.
      We are looking at a target of four to six weeks rather than six months in which to get maintenance flowing. The faster turnround of cases will get it flowing more quickly and reliably, and that is the aim underpinning the changes. The new clause would mean that the agency would be legally bound to deal with all cases referred to it in a set target time, regardless of whether the parents were co-operating, of why the delay had occurred and of the normal peaks and troughs in the number of separated parents applying for maintenance.
      The Secretary of State will, as now, set the CSA a range of targets each year, including those relating to clearance times. However, it is unrealistic and inappropriate to set such targets in legislation. That is not done in any other area, and legislation is a particularly inflexible way of setting targets.

      375
      5.45 pm
      If the wording of the new clause is taken literally, a target embracing the clearance of "all" cases would have to be set at the level of the most difficult case if it were to be remotely realistic. A more demanding target would lead the agency to devote a disproportionate level of its resources to clearing such cases, substantially worsening the position for those who would otherwise expect quick and effective decisions. That would be counterproductive.
      The chief executive of the CSA is rightly accountable to Parliament for the performance of her agency and details of its performance against each of its targets are published in its annual report. The performance of the agency is also subject to the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Social Security. Requiring the CSA to meet what might be inflexible clearance-time targets that were set in isolation from other targets, such as those relating to accuracy, would simply not be sensible.
      The new clause would also require the agency to pay compensation to parents where the agency failed to meet its statutory clearance targets regardless of the cause of the delay. As hon. Members will be aware, the Department of Social Security, in common with other Departments, has a discretionary compensation scheme, which provides financial redress to anyone who has suffered financial loss, harm or suffering as a result of poor administration.
      Mr. Pickles: I think that the Minister has misread the terms of the new clause. It says:
      The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, set a target time within which the Child Support Agency shall deal with all cases referred to it.
      That means all the various categories. The Secretary of State will set the targets for the various categories and it is a perverse reading of the true meaning of the new clause to suggest that a target must be set for every single case. The new clause would mean that targets would be set for the various categories. If that is what it means, all the Minister's objections to it will be swept aside.
      Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman did not deal in detail with that aspect of the new clause when he moved it. However, it refers to "all cases". There is no distance between us on the need for the CSA to have targets. Those targets should be published and should be made available. The CSA should then prove to the rest of us—its accountability is well set out—that it is capable of meeting those targets. I do not think that the new clause would assist that process, and we do not want the targets to be set in legislation. They are normally set by a Secretary of State and reported on in annual reports, but they certainly do not appear in secondary legislation. If they did, that would make them inflexible.
      Compensation is already paid and, last year, it amounted to more than £4.5 million. There is nothing between us on the setting of targets and I am not saying that we will not set very rigorous targets for the CSA. However, we do not want to set them in legislation; we want them to be set in the normal way. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the CSA will be accountable.
      Mr. Pickles: I am most grateful to the Minister. She says that there is consensus on the setting of targets, and she is absolutely right about that. Everyone agrees that the targets should be reasonable. We do not want to place the CSA and even Ministers in a difficult position. We argue that realistic targets should be set.
      There is, however, a difference of opinion between us. She says that if targets are not met for individuals, nothing will happen. We argue that people should be entitled to compensation, but when I said that nothing would happen, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) shook his head. I am not sure what would happen. Perhaps a report would be written, perhaps the CSA would have to appear before a Select Committee and receive a grilling or perhaps it would be the subject of an audit from the Public Accounts Committee. However, such processes are meaningless to ordinary members of the public, because they are blissfully unaware of them.
      We have debated this issue before and we must remember that the individuals involved are ordinary folk who want to achieve justice from the system. They are not concerned whether an official whom they consider to be highly paid appears before a Select Committee and receives a bit of a grilling from even more highly paid politicians. They are thinking, "I've been waiting a month and nothing has happened. Why not? I haven't received any compensation or an apology. I've received nothing."
      Mr. Swayne: The Minister, in putting her case, set out what targets she will seek to achieve for the length of time taken to process an application. Does my hon. Friend consider those targets reasonable, as the Minister does, or does he have alternatives?
      Mr. Pickles: Well, we do not know what targets the Minister will set. We have had a vague promise that targets will be set.
      Angela Eagle: We shall publish the targets. Clearly, they will not be a state secret. Targets for the CSA and all agencies within the Department of Social Security are published, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the process will be open.
      Mr. Pickles: I am sure that receiving the targets will not be a case of meeting at the crossroads at midnight. I am sure that they will be published.
      Mr. Swayne: Given that the targets will be published and that the Minister complained that it would be inappropriate to set targets in the Bill, there can be no objection to the new clause because it does not require targets to be included in the Bill. It merely requires the Secretary of State to set targets.
      Angela Eagle: In regulations.
      Mr. Swayne: Indeed, in regulations. Given that the Minister will set such targets—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make an intervention on his hon. Friend, he needs to disguise it better than that.
      Mr. Pickles: In so far as I understand my hon. Friend's point, I agree with him. The Minister was told by those

      377
      briefing her on the new clause, "This will be a piece of cake because the Tories have tied themselves in knots. We do not want to set the targets in legislation because that is wholly unreasonable. Look, they're using the word 'all', so you'll have no problem dismissing the new clause." Of course, problems have started to occur. We have had distinguished contributions from the Liberal Democrats and, of course, my hon. Friends, saying that the new clause is sensible. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is absolutely square on.
      We must look at the new clause. It is nice to debate legislation in this place but it is better to look at what we are debating. The new clause says:
      The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, set a target time within which—
      Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman has already read out the new clause.
      Mr. Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but it is clear that he was not listening, so I shall continue. The new clause says:
      The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, set a target time within which the Child Support Agency shall deal with all cases referred to it.
      We want the Secretary of State to do precisely that.
      That does not mean to say that every case would have the same target. I do not suppose that the Under-Secretary thought that every CSA case would have an identical target. That is certainly not what she just said. She started to take hon. Members into her confidence and said that the targets will be published and the process will be open.
      The new clause seeks only to ensure that the targets set by the Secretary of State will have a consequence. Subsection (2) would empower the Secretary of State to set the level of compensation to be paid if those targets were not met. That is necessary for two reasons. First, as I have already said, we want to ensure that the people waiting on the telephone and sending letters do not think that their words have gone into a great black hole.
      Mr. Swayne: I fear that in his attempt to be reasonable and to persuade the Government to adopt the new clause, my hon. Friend is handing rather too much power to Ministers because the regulations, compensation and targets will be entirely at their discretion. Could he assist the House by indicating what would be reasonable compensation and what would be a reasonable target?
      Mr. Pickles: I have no idea whether my hon. Friend is a fly fisherman or whether you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but when one casts the lure on the water, it is important that it is attractive enough to make the Government snap. My hon. Friend must recognise from his time in the House—which is daily becoming more distinguished—that the Government resist including precise figures in primary legislation because they want more power.
      To tempt the Government to accept the new clause, I am offering them considerable power. That is a straightforward strategy. I may be criticised for making it easy on the Government and for making the system work,
      378
      but we decided that from day 1 we would deal with the Government on the basis of trying to improve the Bill, and that is why the new clause has been made so tempting.
      Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that on the subject of compensation payments the Minister gave us a passable imitation of Dr. Pangloss in suggesting that the present arrangements are entirely satisfactory? Does he recall that she referred to the overall sum available for compensation? Does he think that it is more important to establish that the individual amounts payable in given circumstances are appropriate than to brag holistically about the overall level, because that gives the impression that, Scrooge-like, she is concerned with the totality rather than the cause of individual justice?
      Mr. Pickles: I understand my hon. Friend's suggestion. The Minister said that the new clause is not entirely alien to the Government's measures; a compensation scheme exists and the new clause is perhaps a natural add-on to that scheme. In a way the Minister is arguing against herself by not accepting the new clause.
      As I said, the first reason why subsection (2) is necessary is to ensure that the public understand that a compensation scheme exists. The second reason relates to administrative convenience. The new clause would enable us to find out pretty soon if things are going wrong. We could find out in various ways. We could set up a complex system, perhaps involving computer software and outside consultants who could monitor customer satisfaction, conduct opinion polls and set up a focus group of people who had dealt with the CSA.
      I suspect that all those methods would be very effective, but subsection (2) offers a cheap and cheerful alternative. Compensation will be paid on the basis of a failure to comply with pre-set Government targets, so we would find out instantly if things went wrong. Sensible CSA managers would be monitoring the effect of the new clause almost weekly. I imagine that they might well have a graph in their office showing the amount of compensation being paid. If they suddenly found that the curve was starting to change and the graph was becoming almost vertical, they would ask themselves what was happening. That would tell us that something has gone wrong in the system; it would give us an early warning—
      6 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I give the hon. Gentleman an early warning? I feel that he is beginning to repeat himself.
      Mr. Pickles: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I am sure that you realise, I am genuinely attempting to improve the Bill and I have now made my second point.
      The Government suggest that the new clause, if it is interpreted in a certain way, might have a perverse effect, because of the words "all cases". I recall the Under-Secretary saying that there might be a possibility of officials deciding not to pursue certain cases because they would take too long. The hon. Lady understands that we interpret the words "all cases" differently, but—[Interruption.] The Minister of State appears to want me to go on even longer, even though I have already received a warning from the Deputy Speaker. I was about to become accommodating, so the right hon. Gentleman should not provoke me.

      379
      Because of the Under-Secretary's comments and because our proposal appears to have attracted cross-party support, I am hopeful that she will have a little think about it.
      Mr. Bercow: Is not the problem with compensation that the process of pursuing it is often difficult, lengthy and uncertain, notwithstanding the Under-Secretary's comments about the overall compensation payable? Therefore, is not the merit of the specificity of the new clause that it will give CSA staff an incentive to good performance that the Bill does not provide?
      Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
      Angela Eagle: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has it slightly wrong: £4.5 million is not the amount of compensation that is available, sitting in a pot, waiting to be claimed, but is the amount of compensation that was paid out last year.
      Mr. Pickles: I think that we understood that.
      Because the use of the phrase "all cases" might result in the new clause having a perverse effect, because there is a high degree of consensus on the clause, and because I suspect that the matter will be pursued in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdraw.

    Schedule 1

      SUBSTITUTED PART I OF SCHEDULE 1 TO THE CHILD SUPPORT ACT 1991
      Mr. Pickles: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 83, line 7, at beginning insert—
      '( ) Where the amount of child support maintenance calculated exceeds such sum as may be prescribed ('the maximum sum'), the maximum sum shall be payable by the non-resident parent.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 88, in page 83, line 7, at beginning insert—
      ' "( )(a) Following the calculation of the amount payable by the non-resident parent the Secretary of State shall determine the net weekly income of the parent with care in like manner to the determination of the net weekly income of the non-resident parent.
      (b) Where the net weekly income of the parent with care exceeds the net weekly income of the non-resident parent of the Secretary of State shall in such manner as may be prescribed reduce the amount of child support maintenance payable by the non-resident parent.
      (c) Where the non-resident parent is liable to pay child support maintenance to more than one person the provisions of (a) shall apply to each parent with care and the reductions in the amount payable provided for by (b) shall apply to the amounts payable to each of those parents with care in receipt of a net weekly income greater than that of the non-resident parent.".'.
      No. 2, in page 83, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph 4(1) and insert—
      '4.—(1) Except in a case falling within sub-paragraph (2), a flat rate of £5 is payable if the nil rate does not apply and the non-resident parent's net weekly income is £100 or less.'.
      No. 3, in page 84, line 2, leave out from "force;" to end of line 4.
      No. 4, in page 84, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph 4(3)
      380
      No. 5, in page 84, line 11, at end insert—
      '; or

      (c) he received any benefit, pension or allowance prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph; or

      (d) The or his partner (if any) receives any benefit prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph.

      (2) The benefits, pensions and allowances which may be prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 5(1)(d) include ones paid to the non-resident parent under the law of a place outside the United Kingdom.'.
      Mr. Pickles: The amendments address matters of great importance. On Second Reading, we made it clear that, although we support the notion of simplified banding, we believe that the Bill makes certain injustices likely.
      Three great injustices have not been addressed. The first is the issue of rough justice and the lack of variations, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, kindly allowed us to debate briefly in connection with new clause 27. The other two relate precisely to the amendments, especially the first two in the group. They are the injustice of not having an upper limit for the purposes of assessment and the injustice that arises when the parent with care is wealthy and the non-resident parent is poor.
      The Bill is a landmark measure because it creates a new right in law: that a child shall have a share of the parent's income during the lifetime of the parent. That legal right is unique, not only in British law, but anywhere else in the world, according to the advice that I have received from learned colleagues and counsel.
      Mr. Swayne: Although the right might well be unique, it does not strike me as unreasonable. My hon. Friend appears to dispute the right. Will he explain why he considers it unacceptable?
      Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend must be patient: I was about to explain, but he will have to allow me a few oratorical flourishes before reaching that climax.
      I understand that a similar right exists in Germany, but only in connection with inheritance—in other words, the parent has to be dead. Britain is the only place in the world that will give that right when the person who has the money is still living. The strange aspect is that the right is given only to children of a broken marriage or relationship; in addition, the right affects only the non-resident parent's wealth. Therefore, children do not have such a right in relation to the parent with care or if their parents live together. A child of a broken marriage has no such right in connection with the parent with care, who might be wealthy, but has it in connection with the non-resident parent, who might be poor.
      Under the Bill, the child has no right to claim the money itself. Therefore, although we create a brand-new right in law that one child is entitled to 15 per cent., two children to 22 per cent., and three or more children to 25 per cent. of the non-resident parent's income, the children cannot get hold of the money themselves; it is paid over to the parent with care. No wonder the arrangement has been described as spousal redistribution by stealth. It is a way of re-examining a divorce settlement.
      I know that you like transparency in such matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is strange that the Government are reluctant to give a reason for the arrangement. All we hear

      381
      is a woolly statement that children have a right to enjoy and share in any increase in the wealth of the non-resident parent. That is all the explanation that has been given, so I hope that the Under-Secretary will provide some further explanation today.
      I do not believe that a child has such a right. I believe that children have a more important right, which is to be maintained by each parent. Children have a right to maintenance and to their education, housing and other needs being met, but they do not have a right to an immediate share in their parents' wealth. There might be a presumption or an expectation that, as time passes, certain sums will be handed over to a child during its lifetime, or that it will receive some sort of inheritance after a parent's death, but the child has no right to receive such sums. The House should not be involved in carving up a person's wealth. That should be a matter for the individual parties to decide. Individuals have a right, a duty and an obligation to look after and support their children. They cannot palm their children off on to somebody else. That is the position in law.
      We have been considerably helped, during the Bill's passage through the House, by the work of the Select Committee on Social Security. I shall quote from its recommendations, which I think are set out on pages xlii and xliii. The Committee states:
      In the final analysis, the child support formula should be seen clearly to be related to the cost of bringing up children and not as a straightforward "tax" levied on the non-resident parent. We recommend that the Government should re-examine the possibility of inserting in the legislation an upper limit on the automatic application of the revised CSA formula.
      That was wise advice. The wording was chosen because it reflected the evidence as it unfolded.
      Select Committees sometimes fall down when the dirty hand of politics becomes involved, and that happened in this instance. There was an amendment to strike out the recommendation to which I have referred and instead to include the words
      continue to share in that parental wealth.
      However, the Committee still felt able to include the warning that
      there is a risk that a few high-profile cases involving payments about the maximum contribution may negatively affect public perception.
      I bet they will. The social security system and the CSA will be brought into disrepute.
      I am sure that Mr. Bill Gates of Microsoft leads a blameless life and that he would never shirk his responsibilities. However, let us suppose that he did, and that the CSA came after him. Mr. Gates is worth £53 billion a year. According to the formula that the Government seek to impose, if he had two children they would receive £10.6 billion by way of child maintenance. The House will be aware that the gross national product of Luxembourg is £8.9 billion. That is an illustration that the formula goes beyond maintenance and that it does not make sense.
      I have used Mr. Bill Gates as an example because he is the wealthiest person whom I have heard of, and to ridicule the system. However, the Government's formula will have a more perverse effect. Another example is that of two houses side by side. In house A we have a parent with care on £9,000 and a non-resident parent on
      382
      £300,000. In house B there is a parent with care on £300,000 and a non-resident parent on £9,000. I have simply reversed the figures. Let us suppose that each house has one child. On the basis of 15 per cent., child A would receive about £45,000 a year in maintenance, and child B would receive £1,350. That is a difference of £43,650.
      What sense is there in that? Are the Government suggesting that child B on £1,350 is adequately cared for? Presumably they are. Are they suggesting that child A on £45,000 is adequately compensated? Presumably they are. However, each child is identical, which is why the figures are so perverse.
      6.15 pm
      If there is no upper limit, the CSA will find itself increasingly taking over court order assessments. The Law Society and leading lawyers are warning us about that. [Interruption.] The Minister makes disparaging remarks about the legal profession, but it was not so long ago that it was suggested that the CSA should set up a counselling service under a leading judge to produce a far more judicial system. After all, the Minister is seeking to achieve a lawyer's playground. A great deal of money will be made, and we can be pretty sure that that will not be for the benefit of children.
      As the Law Society and leading counsel have said, all that is required is 14 months' notice to be given by the parent with care, who can then take up to 25 per cent. of the non-resident parent's income. Even if there is a clean-break divorce, even if substantial child maintenance has been agreed, even if there have been deals with regard to the transfer of shares, pension rights, properties, the setting up of various trusts and various assets from the marriage being transferred, these events would be regarded as never having happened. It would be within the ability of the parent with care to go straight to the courts.
      I know that Labour Members are reluctant to accept quotes from Mr. Mostyn. However, in his talk, to which I referred earlier, he made an interesting observation about the legal profession and about how judges would deal with these matters. He referred to substantial maintenance and said:
      I think you are beginning to see—
      He was addressing a bunch of lawyers—
      how this is going to be a lawyer's beanfeast for us because we are going to be very clever working out ways to get round this and I will explain some of them later on. A certain High Court Judge has said to me that if that happens—
      that is, if the proposed arrangements are made and are overturned by the CSA—
      "I'm going to order spousal maintenance from the wife back to the husband to rectify the situation", but that won't work when they are unmarried.
      In other words, this is about spousal maintenance. It is a back-door means of achieving precisely that. I believe that the Government's approach was regarded as being rather politically correct, it being about the rights of the child. It was armchair political correctness. It was included to make everyone feel good—"We shall do this and the added bonus is that we might be able to stick a few rich people as a bonus." However, the scheme will have an effect further down the process.
      In Committee, the Minister said that, if we had an upper limit—I am speaking from memory, but I am pretty sure that the hon. Lady said this—we might be vulnerable to a

      383
      challenge by the European Court of Human Rights. The hon. Lady is silent. I wish that she would give me a clue whether she said that or not.
      Mr. George Stevenson: We are waiting to be convinced by the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Pickles: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is good to see him in the Chamber.
      I am pretty sure that the record will confirm what I believe the Minister said. However, an upper limit already exists. Is she suggesting that we are open to challenge? As leading counsel has said, we need to see that advice, because it goes against all the experts in family law. All the experts on the European convention on human rights say that that is not the case, but the hon. Lady seems to have found a lawyer to say that it is. If it flies in the face of conventional wisdom and all the advice that we have received, we should know. I look forward to hearing from her what the position is.
      We are not unique in having such a system. The system in Australia has the same aim. In Committee, I quoted extensively from Mr. Justice Kay of the Australian court. I did not realise at the time how distinguished he was. Apparently, he is the senior judge in the family court of Australia, and the principal appellant judge after the chief justice, so he is a senior man.
      Justice Kay was asked to give advice to the Select Committee, and stated:
      Placing a cap on administrative assessment of child support and factoring in some income of the carer are seen as being entirely consistent with two underlying essential bases of the scheme.
      The first principle is
      that children have their proper needs met from reasonable and adequate shares in the income, earning, property and financial resources of both of their parents.
      The second is
      that parents share equitably in the support of their children.
      Justice Kay was asked whether those principles would meet with public acceptance. He commented:
      The success of the scheme may well depend on the extent to which the public perceive it to be fair. Assessments which throw up $550—
      the sums are given in Australian dollars—
      a week for a baby or ignore the fact that the carer is earning $100,000 per annum whilst the payer is struggling to make ends meet do little to bolster public enthusiasm for the scheme.
      The Government's proposal is entirely consistent with the Labour party's pre-election pledge, which stated:
      We are determined to establish clear principles, in the context of changing times, and to devise policies that are as fair as possible for all the parties concerned, including mothers and fathers.
      I anticipate what the Minister will say. She will speak about rough justice and tell us not to worry, because the system is to be simplified. She will say that some people may be disadvantaged, but too bad. She will tell us that 96 per cent. of parents with care have net weekly incomes below £100, and that only 6,000 people will be affected.
      In my book, 6,000 is a substantial number, and that does not take account of the effect on middle England. Once the measure becomes law, there will be a rush—nay, a stampede—of people seeking to overturn court judgments and to get a larger slice by way of spousal distribution.
      384
      Is it not absurd that we may be chasing a non-resident parent with a low income—as low, say, as £9,000 a year—when the parent with care is wealthy? Is it not absurd that we are giving children a right to a share of the income of one set of two parents? The amendments are intended to make sense of the CSA reforms.
      Miss Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Where the non-resident parent has formed another relationship and the other partner to that relationship is making provision, should that not be taken into consideration?
      Mr. Pickles: Not in the context of the amendment, which deals with parents with care who are wealthy. It is ridiculous to suggest that the income of the parent with care should not be taken into consideration. It makes a mockery of the system to chase after someone for a relatively small sum, when the child is living with a parent who has considerable wealth.
      Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be an accurate summary of his position to say that he was arguing on the strength of the principle, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."?
      Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is probably a keen fly-fisherman. I shall take no more interventions, as I want to make progress.
      We should stop making the CSA a laughing stock. Without the amendments, we will create injustice and a new concept in law which has not been thought out. We will undermine the successful introduction of a set of measures which we sincerely hope will succeed. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Field: I shall speak to amendment No. 87. I confess that, so far, Bill Gates has not come to my surgery to discuss the sort of issues raised in the debate. [Interruption.] Of course, I live in hope.
      I shall describe a real-life situation for some, but not many, constituents. I pose this as a question to the Minister, which she may answer now or in a letter later, about how the new Act will operate and the safeguards that it will contain.
      As I understand it, the safeguard is that people will be required to pay only a certain proportion of their income in maintenance. I have had a number of constituency cases in which people had their first child when they were, let us say, 16. They have a court order for the payment of maintenance for that child. They have then married and had a second family. That marriage has broken up. It is on that second family that the CSA calculations will be undertaken.
      I seek an assurance that, under the new system, the maintenance paid for the first child will be taken into account when the proportion of income taken in maintenance is levied—in other words, that that maintenance payment will be taken into account when the safeguard which I understand is in the Bill comes into operation. That is the opposite extreme of how a cap operates, but more people in Britain may be interested in the answer to that question than in the answer to the question of how to treat those families who are lucky enough to have an annual income greater than some continental European countries.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Webb: Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 raise two interesting issues. Amendment No. 87 provides that the absent parent, no matter how rich, continues to pay a percentage in child maintenance. Amendment No. 88—to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) referred, but not in as much detail as I expected—deals with the situation where the mother is better off than the absent father.
      In considering the amendments, we were struck by the fact that they represent opposite logics. Our guiding principle in deciding which way to vote on an amendment is whether it would help to maintain what a child would have experienced had the parents stayed together. That seemed a reasonable way to evaluate the amendments. On amendment No. 87, the answer is no, and on amendment No. 88, yes. Let me explain what I mean.
      Had the rich dad—for simplicity's sake—stayed with the family, the child would have benefited. Maintenance is not just about food and clothing; it is about living standards and quality of life. If a child loses the presence of the dad, is it reasonable to expect them to lose the living standard provided by a well-off dad, or a dad who becomes well off? Had the dad remained and earned a bonus or a good salary, the family might have gone to Disneyland, or wherever.
      Mr. Pickles: Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the Bill provides no way of ensuring that such money is transferred to the child?
      Mr. Webb: Short of putting the money in trust, which would be a possibility, we have to assume that the parents will want to act in the child's best interest, so I have no particular problem with the lack of a mechanism for benefiting the child.
      Different issues arise if the dad becomes rich after the break up, but if he was rich while the family were together, the child will have had a high material standard of living. Therefore, after a break up, not only does the child lose the dad but there is a slump in the standard of living, which is something else to adjust to.
      Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right to question whether a child who loses a father also loses a certain standard of living, but the father loses the child, so should there not be some recognition of that?
      Mr. Webb: Obviously, the father does lose the child. We all encounter fathers in our surgeries who feel that pain greatly and have great concerns about access and other issues, but I am not convinced that a monetary adjustment is the right way to deal with that problem. Court decisions on welfare and access are important in that regard, but I am not convinced that tweaking the formula can compensate. I do not suggest that we compensate the child for the loss of the father through money either; I am simply trying to avoid further pain for the child.
      Therefore, I am not convinced that a cap would make sense. There may be a few headline cases, although, as has been suggested, the Bill Gates of this world will have
      386
      good lawyers and, just as they will probably avoid paying much tax, they will probably find a way round provisions such as this, so they may never be affected.
      We have more sympathy with the rich mum, poor dad situation, where there is more obviously a potential sense of injustice when a dad with a modest income pays maintenance when the mother is well able to provide the child with all that it needs. The loss of money from the dad leaving may be small and there will be one less mouth to feed. I am aware that research shows that, after a split, the family with the children is usually the worst off, but we are dealing here with the opposite case, where the mother is relatively well off, where, after the split, there is one less mouth to feed and the loss of only a modest income, so the family may be better off. It is not unreasonable that that may be taken into account in the maintenance assessment. Therefore, we have some sympathy with amendment No. 88 but not with amendment No. 87.
      Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, relate to one issue and touch on the different set of circumstances of the absent parent, typically the dad, who is on benefits. Schedule 1 says that dads on benefit would probably pay a fiver, which they would not presently be paying. If I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will stop me, otherwise I shall assume that that is the case.
      Is it right to take that fiver a week from an absent parent on benefits? The Government's approach is to say that pretty well everyone should pay something, as much for the symbolism of it as anything else. It is a point of principle, but my problem is that the Government, in so many things that they do, cause people to live below the poverty line by digging away at their basic benefit level.
      I would argue that the £50 a week received on income-based jobseeker's allowance is an extraordinarily minimal sum on which to live. It is certainly not enough to save with, so lump sum purchases require a social fund loan, or something like that. A fiver may not sound much to us, but it could be 10 per cent. of a weekly income. I am not convinced that the symbolism of saying that everyone must pay something justifies the poverty that will be created for absent parents in such a situation.
      The effect of amendment Nos. 2 to 5, on which we shall divide the House because they represent an important and distinct issue, is to move absent parents on benefit from the category of those who have to pay a fiver into the category of those who are subject to the nil rate.
      I give the House an illustration of why we are particularly concerned about deductions from benefits. The "Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry February 1999"—perhaps not the latest, but the latest that I have to hand—gives the number of people on benefits who already have something deducted at source. In other words, they are already getting by on a weekly income below basic benefit levels.
      The astonishing figure here is that more than 1 million income support claimants are already living below basic income support levels because something has been taken away at source. Various categories of money are taken away at source, some of which tell one something about the standard of living. For example, in some cases mortgage interest comes from income support at source, and that is just an accounting feature. The money goes direct to the lender instead of it going to the claimant and

      387
      the claimant paying it out, so that does not directly mean that they are living below the poverty line. About 600,000 people on income support have social fund loan repayments deducted from their basic benefits. One might say that they have had the money with which they bought the bed, cooker, fridge or whatever, but that money has gone on those purchases, so it is not then available for buying food, clothing and basic necessities. The basic income support level is minimal enough as it is, with no slack in it, so many people on income support end up going to money lenders and loan sharks. Pushing them further below income support by schedule 1 is a cause for concern.
      Categories are always being added to such deductions, which take people below the income support line, and the social fund line in the table has been shooting up. In his Budget statement, the Chancellor told the House that there has been year after year of continuous economic growth. One would therefore assume that the numbers would start to drop as jobs were created. Unemployment decreased substantially over that period.
      Yet, according to the table, in the past four years, the number of people who live below the poverty line because of social fund loan repayments has increased from approximately 450,000 to 600,000. The number has increased in each of the past four years. There is an underlying serious problem: more and more of our fellow citizens live below the poverty line because of deductions from benefit. Without our amendments, schedule 1 will exacerbate the problem. That is the kernel of our argument.
      We have reached a position in which people cannot get social fund loans because they are deemed too poor to repay them. That is extraordinary, yet the system works in that way. People are becoming deeply indebted to the social fund and to loan sharks, yet we are considering a schedule that will deduct another fiver. I accept that not many of the dads whom we are considering are in those categories. However, many are lone parents who are repaying social fund loans, and some are pensioners or disabled. Some dads will be on incapacity benefit and repaying social fund loans.
      I hope that the Minister will explain how those people are supposed to live. I presume that the fiver a week will be paid indefinitely. The problem with inadequate benefits is not living on them for a week. Members of Parliament often do a stunt and live on benefit for a week. Lo and behold, they can do it for that time. The problems arise when, for example, a consumer durable has to be replaced. The deduction of a fiver a week will make matters even worse.
      I hope that the Minister can clarify a further point. When an absent parent has a child in a new benefit unit, will the deduction of a fiver continue? The Government talk about eliminating child poverty completely in 20 years. They envisage a time when the Secretary of State for Social Security will say that no child in this country lives in poverty. Yet children who are in benefit units and live below income support levels because of deductions for social fund loans or child support maintenance premiums will suffer. Even a fiver means that those children will live in poverty.
      I hope that the Minister will reconsider the £5 deduction and answer the specific question of whether the Government intend to take £5 from absent parents with dependant children.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I have listened to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), and as always he presents a good and cogent argument. I do not agree with him although I accept his point that we are considering many fathers who are on income support and for whom £5, although it seems a small amount of money to care for a child, may be a severe imposition. I understand those points.
      However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises the counter argument. We are using the Bill to try to create a society in which people get the message that they have rights and responsibilities. If one fathers a child, surely it is not too much to ask for £5 a week, whatever one's circumstances? I support the Government on that point, whatever the difficulties that may accrue from it.
      Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman uses the phrase "father a child". Let us consider the following sequence of events: a happily married couple have a child and they split up, with no blame attached—or perhaps with no blame attached to the absent parent, who is unemployed through no fault of his own and has to live on £50 a week. Is it right that he should pay 10 per cent. of his income, which he cannot afford, because he needs that money on which to live? In those circumstances, the father has done nothing wrong.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Leigh: I make it clear that I do not want to be involved in a blame game, in which we assume that the father is always in the wrong. In many circumstances, the father is not to blame. I cannot give a definite answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. It may not be entirely right to make a father in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described pay £5 a week. However, we cannot make provisions that are always right; we simply have to make a stab at a problem. The Government are trying to send a message that even though the father is not to blame for the family splitting up, and his income has fallen below a low level, he should pay something.
      If the parent pays nothing, not even £5 a week, it is difficult to maintain real control of what is happening. At least a parent who pays £5 a week is involved in the family finances of the absent child. It could therefore be in the father's interest to pay that sum. However severe a financial penalty it may be in the short term, in the long run, the father's continuing involvement in the child's financial maintenance may be best for child and father.
      The debate is interesting, because on the one hand I have been having one sort of argument with the hon. Member for Northavon for the past four minutes, and on the other, we have talked about Bill Gates. The debate is about the child's rights to a share of his parent's income and whether that should be calculated on a percentage basis or whether there should be a cap.
      The debate on the cap is interesting because I suspect that the Government were genuinely divided about whether to provide for it. Baroness Hollis's reply to me in the Select Committee on Social Security has already been mentioned. She was obviously debating with herself as a Minister about whether there should be a cap. She said:

      389
      I think this is a question on which we thought long and hard and I think there are good, strong arguments on both sides. There is one argument saying that you should cap it because it is child maintenance and if it goes all the way up the income scale, it becomes spousal maintenance …
      My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) made that point. The Minister is aware of it, and I hope that she will share her thoughts with us.
      It would be dangerous if the payment were regarded as spousal maintenance. Absurd circumstances could arise. We have considered the Bill Gates position, in which someone of considerable resources hands over enormous sums of money. Let us consider the circumstances of two families that split up: in one case, there are children; in the other, there are no children, and there is a grotesque difference in the amount of spousal maintenance. If the proposal is accepted and there is no cap, the husband in the first case will pay 15 per cent. of his income, whatever it is. In the second, normal divorce law and procedures of the courts apply. There is no rule that provides that if there are no children, one of the partners is entitled to 15 per cent. of the other's wages. Extraordinary discrepancies could arise. We are getting into a muddle.
      Although I appreciate the debate within government, Ministers should consider carefully before they reject the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar presented. I do not want to give the impression that Baroness Hollis simply agreed with me. However, she continued with the argument that she had with herself by saying:
      and the other argument is that if that family were intact, the child would enjoy the living standard of that father whatever his income, whether he was earning £200 a week or £2,000 a week, and at the end of the day in response after listening to the consultation exercise and talking with people and meeting the 40 groups and organisations, we came out on the side of saying that we should not have a cap, but obviously it is the sort of issue that Parliament will want to explore and take a view on.
      That is precisely what we are doing, and what we tried to do in the Select Committee and in the Standing Committee.
      The problem revolves around the issue of whether the child has the right to his father's income. However, in a way Baroness Hollis was wrong when she said
      if that family were intact, the child would enjoy the living standard of that father whatever his income …
      As we all know—indeed, there is hardly any need to say it—there is no right to any percentage or share of the father's income, which can go up or down, if the family is intact. It is not necessarily shared with the child, and I am not sure that it is right that children should always enjoy a share of a parent's income if the family remains intact. It would be a strange legal system if that happened.
      Families Need Fathers put the case well in its evidence to us, which is on page 135 of the Select Committee report:
      Why should the state determine how much fathers should pay for their non-resident child when it does not involve the taxpayer? It would be considered an intolerable assault on personal liberty if it happened in a couple family.
      That is a powerful argument.
      In a way, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar did us a disservice by mentioning Bill Gates as his story, although good and amusing, gave the
      390
      impression that few people will be affected by the proposal. However, quite a few people who in no sense rely on state benefits and pursue normal lives could be affected, because they have suffered the misfortune of a marriage or relationship break-up. Now the state comes in, uniquely in this area, to say, "We must determine how much fathers should pay their non-resident child."
      Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is right to castigate me. I used the Bill Gates story to illustrate a point and make the proposal look ridiculous, but it will bite significantly at about £45,000 a year and people on moderate to medium earnings will be affected.
      Mr. Leigh: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has intervened, because we are beginning to have a real debate. Incomes of £40,000 or £45,000 are middle management incomes in many areas. [Interruption.] Needless to say, Members of Parliament earn such a sum. Large numbers of people will be affected. The public have not cottoned on, but there will be a great deal of resentment if people suddenly find that, irrespective of what happened in their marriage or irrespective of a former partner's position, they have to hand over £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000, which they might consider a very large sum, to maintain a child. They will think that the money will not all go to the child—there is a limit—and they would be right.
      If people send their children to expensive public schools and give them everything they want, which may not be good for them anyway, perhaps they can spend £15,000, £20,000 or £25,000 a year on a child. However, many people will think that the money will not go to the child, but will simply reinforce the life style of the former spouse. Of course the money will not go to the child; nor will it be put in trust. If it were, that might be fairer. There will be enormous resentment. As Families Need Fathers said in evidence, people consider the proposal a grotesque intrusion on personal liberty and it would never be tolerated if a couple were still together. The evidence was moderately put and sensible.
      I hope that hon. Members will not groan if I mention Mr. Mostyn, although they often do so when we pray him in aid of our arguments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Him again."] He practices in the divorce courts and we might think that he knows what he is talking about. He does not practice in cases such as those to which the hon. Member for Northavon referred and he did not talk about people on lower incomes, but he did mention parents earning £40,000, £50,000, £60,000 or £70,000 a year. There are a lot of them around. They may be a minority and they may not be the Government's first concern, but the fact that they are a minority and the fact that there are far fewer of them than people in the lower income brackets does not mean that they do not have rights. They, too, have rights. They have the right to talk about their problems and to speak up about them.
      On page 83 of the evidence, Mr. Nicholas Mostyn told us:
      In terms of English law and social experience it would be a change of massive social profundity. It will go beyond, for example, the Roman law idea of legitim, which is your guaranteed right of inheritance. It will go beyond that because it would be inter vivos It seems to me that you have got to understand the profundity of what you are suggesting.
      Perhaps he overstated his case, but not in this sense: the proposal represents an enormous change in respect of anything that we have instituted previously. Before we

      391
      finish the debate, we must be clear about what we are putting on the statute book. We are saying that, leaving aside inheritance, children in certain circumstances will have an absolute right under statute law to a proportion of a parent's income.
      That is an interesting departure and we know precisely what will happen. The proposal does not concern only CSA cases because the courts will follow the CSA—there can be no doubt about that—and very soon people will wake up to what is happening under the Bill. They will immediately try to reopen settlements. People who received a court settlement of £3,000 or £4,000 a year, supposedly for a child, after their relationship broke down will rush to the court straight away when they realise that their former spouse earns £100,000 or £150,000 a year and that they can get a 15 per cent. share of that. That will happen, and it will be impossible for the courts to resist. A lot of cases will be reopened.
      On a philosophical rather than a practical point, does the House of Commons want to create an absurd situation in which children will think that they have a statutory right to a certain proportion of a parent's income? Conceivably, that could lead to absurd cases in which children sue their parents for that share. We are creating a politically correct notion that most of us in the Chamber would regard as absurd, but the Government will defend themselves by saying, "That is not what we propose. We are not trying to create a new situation in which children have that right." Very reasonably, they say that children will still have a right to share in the income of an absent parent when the parents' relationship breaks down. Everybody thinks, "Oh, that is very sensible," but when we dig down and consider the proposal in more detail we see that it will produce the absurd situations that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar described.
      I hope that the Government will not think that our arguments are partisan or motivated by party politics. They are perfectly sensible and reasonable points and, as the Bill continues its passage, I hope that they will come to consider some sort of cap sensible and necessary.
      7 pm
      Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) seem to be most put out by the creation of the new right to a proportion of a parent's income. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar is more excised over the creation of that right in itself—I am not disposed to the creation of new rights in respect of the rights of the child, that whole area of political correctness, but we must meet people's legitimate expectations—or over the fact that it is available only to those children whose families are no longer intact. That does not strike me as such a reprehensible state of affairs. Children have a legitimate expectation of a childhood of a certain standard, and of parenthood during that childhood. That legitimate expectation has been denied, and I do not think it entirely inappropriate for compensation to be provided in the form of a new right—the right to a proportion of one parent's income in lieu of the legitimate expectation that has been denied.
      Before my hon. Friend begins to fear that I shall enter the other Lobby, let me say that I thought he was on stronger ground when he said that there was no
      392
      mechanism for the delivery of payment to the child. That, I think, is the nub of the problem, and the strength of the amendments. There is a view, or a perception, on the part of those making the payments that they will be subsidising the living standards of the parent with care. That has created a burning sense of grievance, which is compounded when the income of the parent with care is higher than that of the non-resident parent.
      I believe that the feeling of injustice created by the forces to which I have referred will lead to a reduction in compliance, which, after all, is one of the great targets of the Bill. For that reason alone, I support the amendment.
      Angela Eagle: We have rehearsed many of the arguments that were presented at length in Committee, but Bill Gates has now been prayed in aid. I assume that the £53 billion assessment made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) related to Bill Gates's entire wealth, rather than his annual income. We must remember that the child support mechanism deals with net taxable income, rather than the wealth that could be deemed to have accrued over an individual's lifetime.
      Mr. Pickles: At £53 billion, who cares?
      Angela Eagle: That is probably fair comment, but I thought I should point out that we are discussing net taxable income rather than the amount that a person is worth overall.
      We should also bear in mind that there is a cap, in that a non-resident parent will in no circumstances have to contribute more than 25 per cent. of his or her net taxable income. The Government concentrated on that in trying to simplify the system. Lady Hollis shared some of her thoughts with the Select Committee, and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has cited them here, owing to their relevance to the Government's thinking. We have engaged in various debates, but we still believe that we are doing the right thing, and that introducing an upper limit would lead to an inconsistency between the treatment of non-resident parents with relatively high incomes and that of parents receiving more modest sums.
      I think that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who wrestled publicly with the difficulties with which we are all trying to deal, was right to concentrate on living standards rather than incomes for children. We are not talking merely about set incomes, and what goes to particular children. We are not talking just about food and clothing.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Gainsborough said that no children, even those living in well-off households, would, in a mathematical sense, have exactly equal shares of the income involved. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not keep his children in the garage: I trust that they live in the house, and share in the general standard of income.
      Mr. Leigh: My kids are probably in the garage.
      Angela Eagle: They may prefer to play in the garage to get out of the hon. Gentleman's way, but I presume and hope that he does not keep them there permanently.
      Amendment No. 88 seeks to reduce the amount of maintenance payable under the maintenance calculation when the net income of the parent with care exceeds that of the non-resident parent. Let me explain the basic structure of the incomes of parents with care in the current CSA case load. Of those parents, 677,000 have no earned income; 84,000 earn less than £100 a week; 6,900 earn more than £200 a week; only 580 earn more than £350 a week, and only 200 earn more than £500 a week.
      The vast majority of parents with care have only a modest income, and have been left to look after the children. According to the CSA structure, the non-resident parent has a duty to ensure that the children whom he has fathered are looked after properly, and to be financially responsible for their continued maintenance—to the extent that he can be, given the test applied to his income. It is almost always women with low incomes who are left to look after the children.
      Amendment No. 88 would require a huge increase in means testing, and the Conservatives have already told us that they are opposed to that. In seeking to simplify the CSA formula, we aim to abolish means-testing of the parent with care and, perhaps, the means-testing of her partner, the non-resident parent's new partner and so forth. If amendment No. 88 were adopted, the CSA would have nearly 1 million cases on its books by the time that the reform was introduced. The amendment requires the CSA, instead of applying one simple, quick means test to the non-resident parent, to apply four means tests per case to establish the income of the new partner of the non-resident parent, as well as that of the new partner of the parent with care if such a person exists.
      The amendment would reintroduce a huge amount of means testing in a very few cases, and would destroy all the simplicity that has been introduced. It would return us to the problem that we face now: the problem of ensuring that the right balance exists between the need to make a maintenance assessment quickly and simply, and the need to spend time enforcing it.
      The Liberal Democrat proposals deal with the basic payment of £5 that the Bill introduces for all non-resident parents, regardless of whether they are receiving benefit. I understand the worries expressed by the hon. Member for Northavon about people on low incomes: that is why the Bill introduces different levels of payments, including a minimum payment for those whose incomes are below £100 a week. It does not specify percentages, but it provides for that £5 minimum. We think that all fathers, except in a few circumstances—when they are still at school or in prison—should make some payments.
      Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 seek to introduce a radical change. They require a nil rate of liability when a non-resident parent or his partner receives a benefit prescribed for the purposes of the legislation. They also provide for the flat rate to be specified in regulations when a non-resident parent has income of £100 a week or less and has a partner who is also liable for child support.
      I can reassure Members that special provision will be made for the flat rate when a non-resident parent on an
      394
      income-related benefit has a partner who is also liable for child support. The intention is for the flat rate payable by each member of a couple receiving income support, or income-based jobseeker's allowance, to be half the standard flat rate. The £5 minimum is a maximum as well: it can be split equally and £2.50 can go to each child. However, it cannot become £10. I hope that that offers some reassurance.
      The exemptions in respect of payment of contributions for maintenance have been removed. The current scheme exempts some people with quite high incomes. All fathers, whether on benefit or in work, have a responsibility to contribute to their child's upkeep, but we recognise that a simple percentage calculation does not adequately reflect the difficulties that are faced by those on low incomes—hence the £5.
      It is important to keep in mind another key part of our child support reforms: the introduction of the child maintenance premium, ensuring that the money that is paid—all £5 of it—goes directly to the child. It is not, in that sense, a Treasury support agency, which has been one of the major objections and reasons why people on benefits do not pay.
      The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar mentioned social fund users. He was gracious enough to admit that the vast majority—in fact, it is not the vast majority, but a large proportion—of social fund users are women on income support, who will benefit from the £10 maintenance disregard when benefit is paid. Under his amendments, they would not: they would not receive the maintenance disregard because they would not receive any maintenance. There is an evening out.
      I hope that Members will oppose all the amendments.
      Mr. Pickles: I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 87, but with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to divide the House on amendment No. 88.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: No. 88, in page 83, line 7, at beginning insert—
      ' "( )(a) Following the calculation of the amount payable by the non-resident parent the Secretary of State shall determine the net weekly income of the parent with care in like manner to the determination of the net weekly income of the non-resident parent.
      (b) Where the net weekly income of the parent with care exceeds the net weekly income of the non-resident parent of the Secretary of State shall in such manner as may be prescribed reduce the amount of child support maintenance payable by the non-resident parent.
      (c) Where the non-resident parent is liable to pay child support maintenance to more than one person the provisions of (a) shall apply to each parent with care and the reductions in the amount payable provided for by (b) shall apply to the amounts payable to each of those parents with care in receipt of a net weekly income greater than that of the non-resident parent.".'.—[Mr. Pickles.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 271.

      Division No. 130]

      [7.11 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Baldry, Tony

      Amess, David

      Ballard, Jackie

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Beggs, Roy

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bercow, John

      395

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Blunt, Crispin

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Body, Sir Richard

      Boswell, Tim

      Keetch, Paul

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

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

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Brady, Graham

      Key, Robert

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brazier, Julian

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lansley, Andrew

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Leigh, Edward

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Lidington, David

      Burnett, John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Burns, Simon

      Livsey, Richard

      Burstow, Paul

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Butterfill, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Luff, Peter

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Chidgey, David

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Chope, Christopher

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Mates, Michael

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Collins, Tim

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cotter, Brian

      Moore, Michael

      Cran, James

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Norman, Archie

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Day, Stephen

      Ottaway, Richard

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Page, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Paice, James

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Paterson, Owen

      Evans, Nigel

      Pickles, Eric

      Faber, David

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      Prior, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Randall, John

      Flight, Howard

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Rendel, David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Robathan, Andrew

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Robertson, Laurence

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Gale, Roger

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Garnier, Edward

      Ruffley, David

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Gibb, Nick

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Sanders, Adrian

      Gill, Christopher

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Shepherd, Richard

      Gray, James

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

      Green, Damian

      Soames, Nicholas

      Greenway, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Grieve, Dominic

      Spring, Richard

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hammond, Philip

      Swayne, Desmond

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Syms, Robert

      Hawkins, Nick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hayes, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Heald, Oliver

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Townend, John

      Horam, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Tyler, Paul

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Hunter, Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Wardle, Charles

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Waterson, Nigel

      396

      Webb, Steve

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Wells, Bowen

      Yeo, Tim

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Whittingdale, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Willetts, David

      Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

      Wilshire, David

      Mr. Keith Simpson.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Darvill, Keith

      Alexander, Douglas

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Allen, Graham

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

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Dawson, Hilton

      Ashton, Joe

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Dismore, Andrew

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Austin, John

      Doran, Frank

      Barnes, Harry

      Dowd, Jim

      Barron, Kevin

      Drew, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Beard, Nigel

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Edwards, Huw

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Etherington, Bill

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Benton, Joe

      Fisher, Mark

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Flint, Caroline

      Berry, Roger

      Flynn, Paul

      Betts, Clive

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Blackman, Liz

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings).

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Foulkes, George

      Borrow, David

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Galloway, George

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Browne, Desmond

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Burden, Richard

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Burgon, Colin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cann, Jamie

      Grocott, Bruce

      Casale, Roger

      Grogan, John

      Caton, Martin

      Gunnell, John

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Chaytor, David

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Heppell, John

      Clelland, David

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hill, Keith

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hope, Phil

      Cohen, Harry

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Coleman, Iain

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Colman, Tony

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cousins, Jim

      Hutton, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Crausby, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jamieson, David

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dalyell, Tam

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      397

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Salter, Martin

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Sawford, Phil

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Khabra, Piara S

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Kidney, David

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Singh, Marsha

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Laxton, Bob

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Levitt, Tom

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Linton, Martin

      Snape, Peter

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Soley, Clive

      Love, Andrew

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McCabe, Steve

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Stevenson, George

      McDonnell, John

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      McNulty, Tony

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      McWilliam, John

      Stringer, Graham

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mallaber, Judy

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Meale, Alan

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Miller, Andrew

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Morley, Elliot

      Todd, Mark

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

      Touhig, Don

      Trickett, Jon

      Mountford, Kali

      Truswell, Paul

      Mullin, Chris

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Norris, Dan

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Tynan, Bill

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wareing, Robert N

      Plaskitt, James

      Watts, David

      Pope, Greg

      White, Brian

      Pound, Stephen

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Winnick, David

      Rapson, Syd

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Wood, Mike

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Woolas, Phil

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Worthington, Tony

      Rooney, Terry

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Roy, Frank

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ruane, Chris

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Ruddock, Joan

      Mrs. Anne McGuire.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 83, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph 4(1) and insert—
      '4.—(1) Except in a case falling within sub-paragraph (2), a flat rate of £5 is payable if the nil rate does not apply and the non-resident parent's net weekly income is £100 or less.'.—[Mr. Webb.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 269.

      Division No. 131]

      [7.25 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Keetch, Paul

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

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

      Ballard, Jackie

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Livsey, Richard

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Moore, Michael

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Burnett, John

      Rendel, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Chidgey, David

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Cotter, Brian

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Tyler, Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Webb, Steve

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Mr. Andrew Stunell and

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Sir Robert Smith.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cann, Jamie

      Alexander, Douglas

      Casale, Roger

      Allen, Graham

      Caton, Martin

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Chaytor, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Austin, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clelland, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clwyd, Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Coaker, Vernon

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cohen, Harry

      Beggs, Roy

      Coleman, Iain

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Corbett, Robin

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Corston, Jean

      Benton, Joe

      Cranston, Ross

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Crausby, David

      Berry, Roger

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Betts, Clive

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Blackman, Liz

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Blizzard, Bob

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Borrow, David

      Darvill, Keith

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

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

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Browne, Desmond

      Dawson, Hilton

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Burden, Richard

      Dismore, Andrew

      Burgon, Colin

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Doran, Frank

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dowd, Jim

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Drew, David

      399

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McIsaac, Shona

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Edwards, Huw

      McNulty, Tony

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Ennis, Jeff

      McWilliam, John

      Etherington, Bill

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Mallaber, Judy

      Fisher, Mark

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Flint, Caroline

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Flynn, Paul

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Martlew, Eric

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Meale, Alan

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Foulkes, George

      Miller, Andrew

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mitchell, Austin

      Galloway, George

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Morley, Elliot

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mountford, Kali

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mullin, Chris

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Norris, Dan

      Godsiff, Roger

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Goggins, Paul

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Plaskitt, James

      Grocott, Bruce

      Pope, Greg

      Grogan, John

      Pound, Stephen

      Gunnell, John

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hanson, David

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Healey, John

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Heppell, John

      Rapson, Syd

      Hill, Keith

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Hope, Phil

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Rooney, Terry

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Roy, Frank

      Hutton, John

      Ruane, Chris

      Illsley, Eric

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Salter, Martin

      Jamieson, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Jenkins, Brian

      Sawford, Phil

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Singh, Marsha

      Khabra, Piara S

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Laxton, Bob

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Levitt, Tom

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Snape, Peter

      Linton, Martin

      Soley, Clive

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Love, Andrew

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      McCabe, Steve

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Stevenson, George

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      McDonnell, John

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      400

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Tynan, Bill

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stringer, Graham

      Watts, David

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      White, Brian

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Winnick, David

      Tipping, Paddy

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Todd, Mark

      Wood, Mike

      Touhig, Don

      Woodward, Shaun

      Trickett, Jon

      Worthington, Tony

      Truswell, Paul

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mrs. Anne McGuire.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 85, line 23, leave out from "7(4)" to "or" in line 24 and insert—
      '(or that Table as modified pursuant to regulations made under paragraph 10A(2)(a)),'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 37, 38, 44, 53, 57, 39, 41, 49 to 52, 58, 60, 61 and 45 to 47.
      Mr. Rooker: This group of amendments serves two purposes. First, it improves the Bill's drafting, to ensure that the Bill does what we intended and its provisions work. Secondly, it makes some consequential amendments to other Acts. Some of the changes are more significant than others, and I shall spend a very short time describing in some detail the amendments that I think will be of interest.
      Amendment No. 38 will close a loophole that allows non-resident fathers of children whose birth was registered in Northern Ireland to delay payment of child support by denying that they are the child's father. It makes changes to provisions that enable the Child Support Agency to presume paternity. Articles 14 and 18(1)(b)(ii) of the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 mirror provisions in sections 10 and 10A of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, which applies in England and Wales. Clause 15 of the Bill aligns English and Welsh provisions with those in Scotland. That is why we intend to allow the CSA to presume that any non-resident parent living in England and Wales is the child's father if he was registered as the father in Northern Ireland.
      Amendment No. 44 replaces the existing subsection (3) of the new section 55A on declarations of status, inserted into the Family Law Act 1986 by clause 76 of the Bill, with a new provision that achieves the same effect, but in a much clearer way.
      The rest of the amendments in this group fall equally into three broad groups. The first group is composed of minor drafting changes that ensure that the Bill works as we intended and picks up minor errors in the text.

      401
      The second group is composed of consequential changes that make necessary amendments to other Acts in England, Wales and Scotland, to reflect the new provisions of the child support legislation. Some other Acts refer to child support. The Army Act 1955, for example, provides for how child support will be deducted from a serviceman's pay. Changes in the child support provisions must, therefore, be reflected in that legislation.
      The final group deals with legislation that is being repealed. It is usual practice to repeal provisions in other Acts that are made redundant by new child support legislation.
      I hope that the House will accept that these amendments are sensible and necessary to ensure that the legislation works properly and as intended. I commend them to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Andrew George: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 1, leave out Clause 2.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 77, in clause 2, page 3, line 9, at end insert—
      '(4) In section 8(3) of the 1991 Act the word "vary" shall be deleted where it appears after the words "it would otherwise have to make,".'.
      Mr. George: The Minister said, perhaps correctly, that there was a possibility that amendment No. 76 was not technically up to standard. With this opportunity for sober second thought, we should ensure that, while we are trying to put right past mistakes, we do not maintain the current legislative fiasco—which is what Parliament has achieved on the past few occasions when we have addressed the issue—in child support.
      The purpose of amendments Nos. 1 and 77 is to provide us with every opportunity to ensure that pressure is taken off the CSA, and that the court welfare system can be used not to replace, but to aid and support, the CSA. Use of the court welfare system should at least help in preventing the CSA from taking the full brunt and burden of child support work. Current CSA legislation allows for an agreement between the parent with care and the non-resident parent to be incorporated into a court order where the two parents are able to reach an agreement. This is a valuable and greatly used provision, which allows for negotiation between parents and relieves the CSA of work. Clause 2 would effectively remove that provision. Any agreement reached and fixed in a court order will be capable of being overturned after a year, which would make a mockery of the court order.
      The new clause would allow parents who believe that they can do better out of the CSA to break the agreement in the court order. This runs counter to developments in Europe, and in matters relating to children and finances generally. The overwhelming trend is towards mediation and discussion, and the use—as far as possible—of agreement between both sides.
      There are numerous situations where parents may want to opt out of the CSA system. One might be when parents agree that the payments for the children would be greater
      402
      than the CSA would assess. Often, this is as a result of a trade-off. The parent with care may make no maintenance claim for herself in return for a better payment regime for the child or children. A second example might be where parents agree to a lesser sum than the CSA would prescribe; for example, the non-resident parent may transfer capital or the house to enable the parent with care and the children to remain housed, with the mother accepting a lesser level of maintenance in return.
      Approval by courts for parental agreements protects both parents from being pressurised and provides an established and straightforward system. There are no apparent benefits from building into a court system a get-out provision which can produce reasonable and realistic maintenance agreements.
      In amendment No. 77, we seek to retain the court as a viable option, while not denying the powers of the CSA, by giving the court the power to vary a court order and thus giving the court order a longer shelf-life. Some families will insist that they wish to base their financial arrangements not around the hazards of the CSA system as they see it—certainly, past practice would suggest that they would be right—but around an assumption, for example, that they will look at the global costs of a child from time to time, and meet them in certain percentages.
      The scheme is increasingly common, particularly as more and more settlements result from mediation; a trend which is to be welcomed. This is a way in which parents can continue to be involved in the parenting of their children after separation, and it is a child-centred scheme. Such parents will be advised that they cannot opt out of the CSA scheme. Either has the right, after one year, to approach the CSA—a process that will lead to a standard assessment and the termination of the court order. Such parents may wish to make legally binding promises to repay any sums above—or, for other parents, below—the court order, with penalties. That will be a powerful disincentive to approach the CSA.
      Mr. Burns: What confidence does the hon. Gentleman have that his amendment would not lead to a return to the problems before the CSA, when courts awarded different amounts, some of which were ludicrously small and not in the interests of the mother?
      Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is fair and reasonable, and it is clear that these amendments provide an opportunity for a second thought before proceeding in the rather draconian way that is proposed. We do not propose to go back to the vagaries and failures of the past, but, rather, to go forward to a system that takes into account the failures of the CSA. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the CSA is providing a sound basis for child support and represents a success, most hon. Members would disagree.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Burns: Success is a difficult thing to assess accurately but, with all its flaws, the current CSA has been a better mechanism for calculating a more realistic level of child maintenance than the old court system was. It is not a question of going back to something that has failed. If we go back too far—to the courts—mothers would be infinitely worse off than they are even under the existing regime.
      Mr. George: That is a fair point, but we are not talking about going back. Many of the criticisms of the past

      403
      system are fair, but we are proposing to go forward. There is no reason why courts could not set guidelines for the settlement of arrangements between the parent with care and the non-resident parent in the same way as the court does in many other areas.
      Angela Eagle: Would the hon. Gentleman share with the House how the Liberal Democrats are proposing to move forward? The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is quite right; the court system has failed in the past to provide adequate maintenance for many children. Could he spend a little time letting us know how on earth the Liberal Democrats propose to make the courts work?
      Mr. George: That is rather outside the terms and the spirit of the amendment. The Minister may like to reflect on the broad points before we simply hand too much work to an agency that has shown that it is incapable of coping with its present work load. We have tabled probing amendments, which should be welcomed if they provide a caveat to the Government to take some of the pressure off an overburdened CSA.
      Mr. Dismore: Bearing in mind the hon. Gentleman's comments about the CSA's ability to cope with the volume of work, what discussions has the hon. Gentleman had with the court service about its potentially having to handle a million-plus cases? What discussions has he had with the Lord Chancellor's Department about how such cases should be financed—for example, the burden on the legal aid budget?
      Mr. George: We have had discussions with a variety of organisations. I have laid out the justification for our proposals, and Conservative and Labour Members have sniped at that. The purpose of the amendments is clear and, before this House passes the Bill to another place, it is right for us to give an opportunity for reflection on whether the court welfare system might come to the support of the CSA.
      Mr. Burns: I listened to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) with great interest and care. He rightly said in his concluding remarks that he is entitled, at this stage in the Bill's proceedings, to put forward suggestions for us to consider and accept or reject. I suspect that Ministers will reject them, and I hope that they do. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman means well, but the amendment would turn back the clock to the bad old days.
      That would not help carers of children, most of whom would be mothers on benefit. However, it would be very popular with those absent parents—usually fathers—who want to escape or to minimise their financial responsibilities. Before I say any more, I should declare an interest. I pay child maintenance. I do not do so under the auspices of the CSA, although sometimes I wish that I did.
      Labour and Liberal Democrat Members may have criticisms of the CSA as it was set up before this Government reformed it, but the formula was devised with the best of intentions. It was complicated, but the intention was to secure as fair a deal for parents as was possible in the circumstances. That applied both to absent parents and to the ones who looked after the children. The self-evident problem was that, in trying to be fair,
      404
      the previous Conservative Government devised a system that was so complex that it fell into disrepute almost from the beginning. That was partly because of its complexity, and partly because certain people wanted to ensure that the system did not work.
      The Government's alternative is based on the principles of the CSA. Its benchmarks are simplicity and transparency. Over the coming months and years, we will find out whether that finds greater acceptance among parents of children who have to pay child maintenance through the auspices of the CSA. The jury is out, and will remain out for some time, on the question of whether the Government have got the thing right.
      The hon. Member for St. Ives wants to change the Bill to reintroduce a court service. His aims and aspirations may be well intentioned, but he risks doing a great disservice to parents who care for children after a marriage or relationship breaks down. I say that because the courts were singularly inept in their calculation of child maintenance under the old court regime. That was owing to wide variations across the country in the cost of bringing up children. The extent of those variations was not proportional to distance. People ordered to pay £10 a week to bring up a child—even in those days, that was a ludicrous amount—felt aggrieved when they discovered that others in similar or better financial circumstances in terms of income were expected to pay even less. The disparities between awards were ludicrous.
      Furthermore, the enforcement of the awards that were made was haphazard. Courts sometimes made realistic assessments of the amount of money that absent parents should pay towards bringing up their children, but those absent parents often paid no money at all, or only a little. As a result, mothers had to face the expense and the time-consuming problems associated with going back to court to get an order enforcing payment.
      In addition, if absent parents were emphatic about dodging payment, they could string the court system along with 101 explanations of changed financial circumstances. That archaic system could easily be abused or interfered with by people determined not to pay, and it is not a good idea to return to it.
      The courts have to make decisions using evidence about income and other matters that is given to them on the day of a hearing. The hon. Member for St. Ives said that guidance and guidelines could be set down, but they would not help to establish a system that most of the people involved would perceive to be fair and workable.
      The hon. Gentleman then said that, after a year, parents could go to the CSA for what in effect would be justice. Why delay for a year? A year is a long time for a parent bringing up children on a low income and with all the anguish associated with the break-up of a relationship. Parents in that position would have to go to court to try to secure an income for their children, and they would also have to go through the nightmare of watching their former partners refusing to pay or front-loading their expenses to ensure that only an insultingly small amount was paid in the end.
      According to the amendment, after a year of that, parents would have the option to revert to the CSA. I point out to the hon. Member for St. Ives that the Government's proposals mean that they could have turned to the CSA immediately—as they could have done under the slightly different provisions introduced by the previous Conservative Government.

      405
      When courts determine child support levels, the amounts vary significantly between families. The system put in place by the state ensures that the taxpayer does not have to foot the bill that one parent in a relationship does not want to pay. It also ensures greater consistency in the amounts being paid. That consistency will appear fairer to those who resort to the state system.
      The proposal is well meaning but it does not address the difficulty. It would pose infinitely more problems for parents with care than the hon. Member for St. Ives either cares to admit or believes would be the case. Such a retrogressive step—going back to a system that was thrown out because the country would not tolerate it—would help no one.
      Mr. Webb: The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) raises some important concerns about a court-based system. They need to be answered, and I hope to build my response on the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George).
      This issue is central to the Bill. When we debated it first, I recall that the Secretary of State said that only lawyers and Liberals want to go back to the courts. Yet the Department of Social Security pays academics such as Professor Jonathan Bradshaw of York university to do research on lone parents and absent parents. Professor Bradshaw is probably the country's leading academic expert on the problem of absent parents. Speaking about the Bill, he said that the Government had got it wrong. He said that it was a mistake to go for a rigid approach and that a court-based system allowing flexibility in individual cases was the right option.
      I have checked and I am not aware that Professor Bradshaw is either a lawyer or a Liberal. He has no party political axe to grind and the Department pays him to study these matters. His research has led him to conclude that the Bill's rigid, rough-justice system is not necessarily the best strategy for the Government to adopt. I offer that as a third-party endorsement.
      8 pm
      When the Secretary of State tried to rubbish our proposals on Second Reading, he put a costing on them. Given that there seems to be some uncertainty as to what our proposals are, how did the right hon. Gentleman tell his civil servants to cost them? It shows how far-fetched that exercise was. For the benefit of the House and of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who raised some perfectly legitimate concerns, let me flesh out our proposals.
      The hon. Gentleman raised two justified criticisms about the court-based system—relating to variability and enforcement. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives mentioned guidelines, which the hon. Gentleman did not believe went far enough. The courts are used to deciding on the merits of an individual case within guidelines—sentencing is the relevant analogy. The courts use guidelines to decide a specific sentence for a specific case. Sentencing guidelines can be wide, and we may not want such wide parameters for child maintenance, but an absence of variability would not produce the fairness that the hon. Gentleman seeks. He said, if I remember rightly,
      406
      that the system must be seen to be fair. Although wide variations do not create a sense of fairness, neither does treating unlike cases in a like manner.
      Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example, which is loosely based on a constituency case. I have talked about this in the House before, and have never had a clear response from a Minister. A father in a couple enters into a commitment in anticipation of his marriage continuing. He gets a new job which he has to drive to, so he takes on a car loan. The couple then splits up. He has the continuing obligation of the car loan debt to service. If he cannot keep the car, he cannot keep the job and he cannot pay the maintenance. The formula will take no account of that burden. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) is saying from a sedentary position "Take a bus." I assume that that is a facetious remark.
      That is an example of how one can take on a commitment in good faith during a partnership that continues after the partnership is over. The new, very rigid formula does not take that into account, but a court, or some other discretionary process, could, without giving carte blanche for variations, allow for people who have good reasons why 15, 20 or 25 per cent. is in nobody's interest. If the person in my example has to pay 25 per cent. after the car loan has been paid, he may have to give up his job. That would be in nobody's interests, and we all care about the interests of children here.
      We do not want to return to the old court system. The proposed system would give firm guidelines about the base figure, but would leave scope for limited variation in difficult circumstances.
      The question has been asked: could the courts cope with this burden? Our strategy is that the courts would not be dealing with nine out of 10 cases. The scope for variation would be in the hard cases. There would be a limited number of bases on which one could argue that the percentage was not fair, and those would be handled before a court. People would have their day in court and argue their specific circumstances. Most standard cases would be handled according to a formula through the CSA or the courts. It would cost the same amount of money whoever did the sums, but there would be fallback situation, in which individual circumstances would be taken into account. That is why we think that a court-based system gives a balance between fairness and consistency.
      On enforcement—
      Caroline Flint: I want to be clear about the hon. Gentleman's example of the man with the car loan and the children. Surely if the man is in a relationship with children before his relationship breaks up, he is already contributing to their upkeep. Therefore, when he decides to take on a car loan while he is in a relationship, he will take into account the costs of maintaining his children. The children do not disappear before he takes on the car loan, and he should take that into account in his life style.
      Mr. Webb: I think that the hon. Lady is missing the point. I am not sure whether she was in the Chamber for our earlier debate. In the Division on it, she voted against the proposal that the living standards of the parent with care should feature in the calculation. In the circumstances

      407
      that I have just described, let us suppose that the father is stretched in paying the car loan out of his own income. The family has managed to maintain the children by using some of the mother's wages. That is how they have squared the circle. After repaying the car loan, the dad may not have much money to pay towards the children's upkeep, but the family has pooled its resources. They cannot do that when the father moves out. He does not necessarily have spare cash.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what would happen in the sort of family situation in which I grew up? What happens when the mother is left with loans which she has no way of paying back, and the court system does not deliver an equitable solution until years down the line? Will the hon. Gentleman address that problem in the context of his comments on enforcement?
      Mr. Webb: The assessment under the Bill will take no account of the factors described by the hon. Gentleman—it will be 15 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's point strengthens my case that in those circumstances the welfare of the child probably demands a higher maintenance figure, but the Bill says that that cannot be done.
      Mr. Burns: Under the amendment, what happens if the mother has caused the breakdown of the relationship by going off with someone else who is reasonably well off? One does not expect the CSA or the courts to take that person's income or wealth into account in paying for the upkeep of the children, but there will be a knock-on effect in, say, the quality of housing to which the mother and children move. In the point made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the car loan is taken into account. What impact will the third party on the mother's side have in the court's calculations under the hon. Gentleman's scheme?
      Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman's example highlights the often complex relationships in all cases. We would need to set out in regulations what the judge was allowed to take into account in exercising discretion. I do not immediately know the right answer on whether the judge should take that into account or how far it should be taken into account. We would need to sit down in a more measured way and ask whether something was legitimate for the court to take it into account.
      Mr. Burns: What happens if the mother goes off with another man, but has got divorced on the two-year basis, so the divorce is not on the grounds of adultery? Does the court take the father's word for it that the mother has committed adultery and gone off with another man?
      Mr. Webb: The last thing we want to do in setting the child maintenance level, which is about the child's welfare, is to get into the blame game. There is a formula that gives a guideline for what the child maintenance should be. Variations may arise from difference in material circumstances and commitment, but not from who was at fault.
      Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that, under his proposal, about nine out of 10 cases would go to the CSA and not to the court. Now he has said that
      408
      everything is very complicated and every case is different. Does that not mean that every case would, in effect, go before a court?
      Mr. Webb: The idea is that the formula, whether it is operated by the CSA or the court system, gives a baseline figure. People will say that the figure arrived at is not fair in their circumstances only if certain tests are satisfied. One of those tests will be whether it is thought that there should be a substantial variation in maintenance which is way out of line. The family will not want to go through the hassle of the court system if the variation is minor.
      The hon. Member for West Chelmsford spoke about a second family, and we all know that there are cases of third families. It is a complex matter. We are simply saying that there should be a baseline figure and individuals should have the right to say, under certain prescribed circumstances, that their case does not fit that, and there should be scope, in the name of fairness, for some variation.
      Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman made a fascinating proposal, which is only now taking flesh as he responds to interventions—indeed, some of us feel that he may be making it up as he goes along. Will he tell us how his system would prevent what happens at present? People who do not want to pay—mostly fathers—create exceptional circumstances by changing their life style so they can get into arguments about departures from the norm and about the reduction of their income. Most of us are anxious that, if we allow too many departures, people will change their expenses regime to become an exceptional case so that they can argue about paying.
      Mr. Webb: That is a fair comment. There is a balance to be struck between—
      Mr. Browne: How do we do it?
      Mr. Webb: The Government do it by taking only one end of the scale. They say there should be complete rigidity, with no reflection of individual circumstances. The example I cited is the case—more or less—of someone who came to my surgery. He had entered into a legitimate expense to keep a job to pay for the children. It is not in the interests of the child to adopt a rigid formula. The dad cannot pay because he has a car loan, so he gives up the job and no one gets anything. How is that fair? How is that in the interests of the child?
      I do not want to prolong this matter unduly. We are only trying to point out that the Government have chosen one end of the scale. The amendments would allow scope for limited discretion—not as much as in the past—with better enforcement.
      Enforcement is a problem, although I have not dwelt on that matter. However, there is a good argument that, when people have to fill in court papers, they do not respond as they would if they received papers from a Government agency. There is some—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may question that. My impression is that dealing with the courts, although not foolproof, has more cachet—because people associate courts with punishment—than dealing with a Government agency. There is no evidence that people take CSA paperwork seriously. Plenty of people ignore the CSA more readily than they would ignore the courts.

      409
      The Government have chosen one extreme; it will create rough justice. We shall have to return to these matters in future Parliaments because there will be so many cases of rough justice. We shall look back to this debate and say that perhaps we should have thought about flexibility rather than instituting a rigid system.
      8.15 pm
      Angela Eagle: We have heard an interesting display of busking from the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) who made up policy as he went along—apparently from the experience of only one case.
      I want to share with the House the costs—on our current estimates—of moving back to the courts system. CSA running costs are £220 million a year. The Lord Chancellor's Department advises us that the average net cost of a family proceedings application is £80; for 1 million cases, that would be £80 million.
      In addition, legal aid would be available; the average legal aid cost for child maintenance proceedings was about £1,700 in 1998–99. Assuming that about 50 per cent. of CSA cases are entitled to legal aid—a generous assumption, as 75 per cent. of parents with care are on benefit—that would amount to £850 million. Assuming only one hour's work on every case—another generous assumption, as most lawyers would tell us—at £200 an hour, the court costs would be £1 billion.
      The hon. Gentleman proposes that we should create a system that costs five times more than the current CSA system on generous costing assumptions. He has given us no reassurance that the system would be as good as the one that we are trying to reform to make it even more effective.
      Mr. Webb: As I pointed out, the Department is now trying to cost a scheme about which it claims not to know the details. That is rather odd. I have shown that, in our model, only about 10 per cent. of cases would reach court. Does not that reduce the cost to £100 million?
      Angela Eagle: I have given the House costs for basic court proceedings on generous assumptions. I suspect that the court costs would soar as the ineffectiveness of the courts became apparent.
      Mr. Burns: Does the Minister agree that, if absent parents had the opportunity to go to court to try their luck at minimising their child maintenance, many of them would take it, because they would have nothing to lose by doing so?
      Angela Eagle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I agreed with most of his speech. It is hard to argue that the courts have a good history of dealing with such cases—even the Liberal Democrats have not tried to do that. The courts have an ignoble history in the protection of children in divorce cases. As many people know only too well, the former court system was discretionary and unfair. It left children in poverty and let non-resident parents off the hook.
      That is why the House chose to move to an administrative system to deal with those issues. Since then, the number of people applying for maintenance
      410
      through the CSA has continued to rise. The agency has become more effective, although we realise that there are inherent design problems in the maintenance system that the House has asked it to administer. That is why we introduced the Bill, which will radically simplify the formula.
      It is ridiculous to think that we could go back to the court system and that it would be effective—I suspect that Conservative Members would agree. I remain astonished that the Liberal Democrats do not realise that basic fact.
      The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) said that the amendment was a probing one. To delete the whole of clause 2 is a funny way to probe. The amendment would destroy one of the main provisions of the Bill, which would allow people access to the CSA and its services if they found themselves in difficulty with maintenance payments.
      The Liberal Democrats seemed to have three concerns about our suggested system. The first was that it would allow the CSA to take on new court order cases that had been made at least 12 months after the new child support system was introduced, and that it would be swamped thereby. Last year, 8,100 new court orders involving child maintenance were made. The CSA's annual take on cases is 350,000, so if 8,000 can swamp 350,000, the Liberal Democrats have an odd view of mathematics.
      The second Liberal Democrat argument was that allowing parents with court orders to use the CSA for a simple and predictable child support calculation would encourage parents to be unco-operative. That argument is difficult to follow, because, since the launch of the CSA in April 1993, courts can make orders for child maintenance only when parents have consented to a written maintenance agreement. That consent must exist before the court can make an order. If new facts subsequently come to light, or the payment arrangements break down, why should a parent not be given the choice of returning to court for the order to be varied or revoked, or of applying to the CSA for a child support maintenance calculation? There is no reason why that should not occur.
      Thirdly, the Liberal Democrats argued that it would be perverse to unravel satisfactory arrangements and that to do so would be detrimental to children. However, leaving access to the CSA open would not have that effect. Only parents who were dissatisfied with existing arrangements would apply.
      Our proposal would ensure that maintenance is right for children. Putting the interests of children first has led us down the road of reform of the CSA. Indeed, that created the CSA, even if the agency was not set up in the most appropriate and effective way. We learned as we went along how the administration of the system can be improved. Children will benefit from the provisions in clause 2. The provisions will give parents with court orders the choice between sticking with their existing maintenance arrangements, or asking the CSA to step in.
      There is also considerable movement on and off benefit. A case that is private on one day can have a taxpayer interest on the next—10 per cent. of people a year move on and off income support and would qualify. Creating a system that deals with children more evenly must be a good way forward. That means that, when the circumstances of parents with care change, there will not be large differences in the maintenance that they can expect to receive.

      411
      The Liberal Democrats have not even remotely made a case for returning to the courts system. I hope that the House will take a sensible, realistic and hard-headed approach and vote against the amendments.
      Mr. Andrew George: I guess from the Minister's response that she is not terribly enamoured of our amendment.
      We have had a reasonable airing of the arguments. Although some hon. Members did not appreciate the seriousness of this very important matter, it is appropriate on Report at least to reflect on the fact that we are missing an opportunity to allow the court welfare system to operate.
      Having listened to the arguments and taken all things into account, and on balance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 5

      DEPARTURE FROM USUAL RULES FOR CALCULATING MAINTENANCE
      Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 8, line 23, leave out from "11," to end of line 26 and insert—
      'and except in prescribed circumstances any appeal connected with it (under section 20) shall lapse.'.
      I shall be brief, and I hope that the House accepts that. Amendment 36 relates to applications for a variation from the normal rules by which child support maintenance will be calculated. It amends the wording of sub-section (5) of section 28F.
      Where a variation application is made before a final decision has been reached on the original maintenance application, the Secretary of State will, whenever possible, take the outcome of the variation application into account in reaching his decision on the maintenance application. Where, for whatever reason, he cannot immediately resolve the variation application, he will make an interim maintenance decision under section 12(2).
      The amendment provides that, once the final decision has been made, any appeal against such an interim decision will normally lapse. That serves to simplify an otherwise quite complex and ludicrous process, under which an appeal would have proceeded against a decision that had subsequently been replaced.
      I commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 2

      SUBSTITUTED SCHEDULES 4A AND 4B TO THE 1991 ACT
      Mr. Andrew George: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in page 88, line 16, leave out subsection (4), and insert—
      '(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b)—

      (a) "illness" may have such meaning as may be prescribed; and

      (b) "disability" shall have the same meaning as in Section 1(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and

      412

      (c) the question whether an illness or disability is long-term shall be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.

      The purpose of the amendment is entirely serious: to clarify the definition of "disability". Under applications for a variation of provisions in schedule 2, the Secretary of State is oddly left to define "disability". Although it is conceivable that the Secretary of State may need discretion over defining "illness" and "long-term", we have in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, under which a commission is to be set up, a firm definition of "disability". Section 1 states:
      a person has a disability for the purposes of this Act if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".
      There are two main arguments for the amendment, on which I can be brief because they are self-explanatory. The first is an administrative argument. The Disability Discrimination Act must be used. If the Government do not get into the habit of using it where they should do so, its worth will be devalued and it will not automatically be referred to as a benchmark.
      The second reason is ideological, and I would have thought the Labour Government would approve of it. The Government have committed themselves to civil rights and equality of opportunity, for which I applaud them. In this instance, however, they are leaving aside an important piece of civil rights legislation. That undermines the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Government's wider aims of social inclusion.
      I therefore ask the Minister at least to acknowledge the fact that there is legislation that provides a more helpful definition of "disability". The Secretary of State could be left with some discretion over the terms "long-term" and "illness".
      Angela Eagle: I hope to persuade the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) of the fact that the Bill applies a reasonable definition of "disability", and to explain to him why we do not think that it is appropriate that the definition suggested in the amendment should apply in such circumstances.
      Amendment No. 79 relates to the provision under which the Secretary of State may agree to vary the normal child support maintenance calculations on the ground that a non-resident parent is incurring costs attributable to the long-term illness or disability of a child who lives with him as a member of the second family. That is the sole reason why we need a definition in this context.
      The provision, and the associated definitions of "disability" and "long-term", are features of the departures scheme, which was introduced by the Opposition when in government in December 1996. As the hon. Gentleman has explained, the amendment would re-define "disability" by reference to section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
      In considering a variation on such a ground, the Secretary of State will be concerned with the costs associated with any disability. Given that there is already a benefit that is dedicated to helping disabled people with the extra costs that they may have to meet—disability living allowance—we propose to provide in regulations that a child will be considered "disabled" if either the care component, the mobility component or both components

      413
      of DLA are in payment to any person on his behalf, or if he is registered blind. The same qualifying conditions apply to awards of the disabled child premium in income support. That creates consistency across the range of benefits, which is important for administrative purposes.
      Having established that such conditions are met, the Secretary of State will need only to consider the evidence that the non-resident parent provides on the additional costs associated with the disabling condition. Our view is that the definition of "disability" that we intend to prescribe is a reasonable one, and that it will be a much more straightforward and objective test for the Child Support Agency to apply than the one proposed in the amendment. The latter would require the agency to make judgments of a medical nature—a task for which it is not qualified—aimed at employers, defining "disability" in employment. It is complex, running to 15 pages of guidance, and appealable to courts and industrial tribunals. In this context, we do not think that that is the best definition of "disability".
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that we have a good, quick, simple and consistent definition of "disability" in the social security system and that our suggestion will be much simpler, quicker and easier to apply. It will not disadvantage anyone; the appropriate people will still be described as "disabled". I hope that, on that basis, he will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I am pleased that I probed the matter because it was unclear. Her reassurances have been helpful. I am sure that the organisations for the disabled that expressed concern about the phraseology will be, as I am, reassured by her response. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 12

      INFORMATION REQUIRED BY SECRETARY OF STATE
      Amendment made: No. 37, in page 11, line 40, leave out ""or" and insert—
      '"(or application treated as made), or'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

    Clause 15

      PRESUMPTION OF PARENTAGE IN CHILD SUPPORT CASES
      Amendment made: No. 38, in page 13, line 36, after "1965" insert—
      ', or under Article 14 or 18(l)(b)(ii) of the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

    Clause 75

      TESTS FOR DETERMINING PARENTAGE
      Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 79, line 1, after "tests)" insert—
      '—(a)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 43, 82 and 54 to 56.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Rooker: I can deal with the amendments briefly, but in two parts. Apart from amendment No. 82, which I shall come to shortly, the amendments are technical. I will set out broadly what they cover.
      Through amendments Nos. 42, 43, 54, 55 and 56, we are making a number of consequential changes to the rules to establish paternity. Clause 75 will amend the Family Law Reform Act 1969 to make changes to arrangements for court-ordered blood tests to establish paternity, so that authority to carry out the tests can be given to accredited laboratories rather than to individual testers approved for that purpose by the Lord Chancellor.
      Although laboratories, rather than individual testers, will be accredited in general terms to carry out the tests, reports to the court with the results of tests in individual cases will still be made by the individual tester who has carried out the test. The references to "person" in section 20(2) of the 1969 Act could be construed as including a body of persons, which would cover the laboratory. Amendment No. 43 therefore replaces that reference with a reference to "the tester", and follows the change through in subsections (4) and (5) of the Act. It clarifies that the report to the court is to be made by the individual person responsible for carrying out the test—that is the tester—and that that individual can be required to provide a further statement to the court amplifying the report or to be called as a witness in subsequent proceedings.
      Amendment No. 42 and part of amendment No. 54 are related drafting amendments. The remaining part of amendment No. 54, and amendments Nos. 55 and 56, are consequential changes in connection with the introduction, through clause 76, of the new section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986.
      Amendment No. 82 will make a much more substantial change. It will change the procedure for court-ordered paternity testing. It will enable the court to overrule a refusal of consent by a person with care and control of a child under 16 to a direction to take a blood sample from the child to establish its paternity, where the court is satisfied that it would be in the best interests of the child for the sample to be taken.
      The amendment relates to part III of the Family Law Reform Act 1969, which enables the court to direct the use of blood tests to resolve a dispute about paternity that has arisen in the course of civil proceedings. The need for the amendment was highlighted by a recent case. I have not checked the date, but I believe that the case took place after the Bill was published and may have even been after its Second Reading.
      A judgment in the High Court by Mr. Justice Wall held that, under the current law contained in the Family Law Reform Act 1969, the court had no power to enforce a direction for taking a blood sample from a child under 16 to establish paternity, if the person with care and control of the child refuses to consent to the sample being taken. The judge's view is that, as a result, the 1969 Act may not comply with the European convention on human rights in that it can deny the child the opportunity to know about its parentage.
      The amendment will put the onus the other way. A child will have a right to know who its parents are, and that is why taking a sample may be necessary. However, a court—and obviously not the child—will judge whether that is in the child's interests.

      415
      The Government believe that the law does not adequately protect the interests of children. That case shows that it is clearly unsatisfactory that the person with care and control of the child, who may well also be a party to the proceedings, should be able to frustrate proceedings to prevent the child's paternity being established. That can deny the child the right to know its father, and the father the right to be recognised as such and to play a part in his child's upbringing. I am assuming, of course, that the mother has care of the child.
      The amendment therefore focuses on the best interests of the child. In deciding whether to give a direction for tests to establish paternity, the court will have the flexibility to distinguish between cases where establishing paternity is in the child's best interests, and those where it may not be. It will be up to the court to make the decision.
      Where the child is old enough to express a view, the court will take such views into account in reaching its decision. The amendment will support that process by ensuring that directions given in the best interests of the child can be effectively enforced, and it will ensure that the law in this area complies with the European convention.
      Mr. Pickles: We had long discussions in Committee about the problem of an unreasonable refusal and the consequences that would flow from that. I presume that those problems will move away because a child will have a right to discover, and the court will help to determine, its parentage. Will one of the factors in the court's determination be whether the child receives maintenance?
      Mr. Rooker: I have not taken advice on that question, but I think that the answer would probably be no. The issue is determining paternity. Maintenance would flow from a decision on paternity, but the decision on that would be taken later by another body.
      I made every effort to get as many of the Government's amendments to the Bill as it was on Second Reading tabled in time for debate in Committee, where we could have held detailed discussions. I regret that I was not able to do that. We had to take advice on the judgment that I have mentioned and we had to discuss it in government, so it was not possible to bring this amendment to Committee where we could have spent more time on it. However, I think that my answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is correct.
      The amendment will ensure that the courts can enforce directions for tests to establish paternity so that the interests of children are properly considered and protected. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.
      Mr. Burns: I listened carefully to the Minister. Everything that he said seemed eminently sensible to me as a layman. However, will he help me with an highly unusual constituency problem that is relevant to the amendments and the existing law on parentage as it affects the CSA?
      A constituent came to see me, who, some years ago, had had a relationship with a girlfriend that had ended, I suspect, against her wishes. Two or three years later, he married his current wife. He, his current wife and his ex-wife were then bothered by the former girlfriend to the extent that the police were involved. After he had
      416
      remarried, the CSA contacted him out of the blue to say that he had a two-year-old child from his relationship with his former girlfriend, that she was on benefit and that he needed to provide details of his income for assessment.
      That news came as a tremendous surprise to my constituent, because he was totally unaware at the time of the relationship that his girlfriend was pregnant and because the timing of the pregnancy did not coincide with when he went out with her. He demanded and was granted a blood test by the CSA, which, to his amazement, proved that the child was his.
      There is nothing particularly unusual about such a case. However, my constituent then thought more about the matter, because he could not understand, from the time scale, how his ex-girlfriend could have conceived the child. It transpired that, during his relationship with her, there had been a time when she wanted, and he agreed, to conceive a child, but she had problems conceiving. He had agreed to participate in in vitro fertilisation treatment and some of his sperm were frozen in a sperm bank. After the relationship had ended, she had managed—I can only assume illegally, because he had not given his permission—to get hold of the sperm, and a successful conception took place.
      My constituent argues that these are highly unusual circumstances, which they are, if they are 100 per cent. true, and I have no reason to doubt that they are. He did not want a child at the time when the child was conceived and born; he did not agree to his sperm being used, but he has heard from the CSA that the blood test in which he participated voluntarily has proved that he is the natural father. He argues that it is unfair that, under the child support regime, he is automatically expected to pay maintenance.
      If one assumes that everything that I have been told and relayed to the House is accurate, is that gentlemen, in law, responsible for the financial upkeep of a child whom he did not want to be conceived and who was conceived, it would seem, by devious, if not illegal, means?
      Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has clearly described the circumstances as he understands them, so I understand the question perfectly. However, I shall not even begin to attempt to answer it from the Dispatch Box. I shall not ask the hon. Gentleman to write to me because I understand the question; I shall write to him giving the best advice that I can.
      Hon. Members come to Ministers with all kinds of cases, but I have not had one quite like that. I recently dealt with a case in which a man had admitted that he was the father, but two years later, after a CSA blood test and court case, it turned out that he was not. Such cases are part of human life.
      The hon. Gentleman has asked an important question that deserves an answer, because I suspect that the situation is not unique. I shall seek advice and write to him.
      Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind offer, which I would like to take up, but to save him and his officials wasting their time, I can tell him that if he contacts Mrs. Faith Boardman, she will give him detailed

      417
      evidence of what my constituent has said. I should, however, appreciate an answer from the Minister as well as from Mrs. Boardman.
      Mr. Rooker: Yes, of course. The specifics of the individual case are one thing, but there is also a general question about the issues that the hon. Member raised, so I will look into the matter and write to him.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made:No. 43, in page 79, line 8, at end insert—

      '(b) in subsection (2)—

      (i) for "person responsible for" there shall be substituted "individual", and

      (ii) after "this section" there shall be inserted "("the tester")";

      (c) in subsection (4), for "the person who made the report" there shall be substituted "the tester"; and

      (d) in subsection (5)—

      (i) for "the person responsible for carrying out the tests taken for the purpose of giving effect to the direction, or any" there shall be substituted "the tester, or any other",

      (ii) for "that person" there shall be substituted "the tester or that other person", and

      (iii) after "and where" there shall be inserted "the tester or".'.

      No. 82, in page 79, line 8, at end insert—
      '( ) In section 21 (consents, etc., required for the taking of blood samples), in subsection (3), for the words "if the person who has the care and control of him consents" there shall be substituted—

      "(a) if the person who has the care and control of him consents; or

      (b) where that person does not consent, if the court considers that it would be in his best interests for the sample to be taken.".'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

    Clause 76

      DECLARATIONS OF STATUS
      Amendment made: No. 44, in page 80, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 and insert—
      '(3) Except in a case falling within subsection (3A) below, the court shall refuse to hear an application under subsection (1) above unless it considers that the applicant has a sufficient personal interest in the determination of the application (but this is subject to section 27 of the Child Support Act 1991).
      (3A) The excepted cases are where the declaration sought is as to whether or not—

      (a) the applicant is the parent of a named person;

      (b) a named person is the parent of the applicant; or

      (c) a named person is the other parent of a named child of the applicant.'—[Mr. Rooker.]

    Schedule 8

      DECLARATIONS OF STATUS: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made:No. 53, in page 128, line 6, leave out '55A(5)' and insert '55A(6) or 56(4)"'.
      No. 54, in page 128, line 38, leave out from "1987" to end of line 41 and insert—

      '(a) in subsection (2) to be substituted for section 20(2) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 (report to court about scientific tests), for "person responsible for" there shall be substituted "individual"; and

      418

      (b) in subsection (2A) to be inserted in section 20 of that Act (blood tests in proceedings under section 56 of the Family Law Act 1986), for "56" there shall be substituted "55A or 56".'.

      No. 55, in page 129, line 24, leave out "Where" and insert "This section applies where".
      No. 56, in page 129, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 and insert—
      '( ) Where this section applies—

      (a) if it is the person with care who makes the application, he shall be treated as having a sufficient personal interest for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section; and

      (b) if it is the Secretary of State who makes the application, that subsection shall not apply.'.

      No. 57, in page 129, line 43, at end insert—

      'The Access to Justice Act 1999 (c.22)
      . In Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 (services which are not to be funded as part of community legal services), in paragraph 2(3), after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted—
      "(da) under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 (declarations of parentage),".'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

    Clause 16

      DISQUALIFICATION FROM DRIVING
      Amendments made: No. 39, in page 14, line 22, leave out "the liable person's" and insert "his".
      No. 40, in page 15, line 43, at end insert—
      '( ) Where a court—

      (a) makes a disqualification order;

      (b) makes an order under subsection (5); or

      (c) allows an appeal against a disqualification order,

      it shall send notice of that fact to the Secretary of State; and the notice shall contain such particulars and be sent in such manner and to such address as the Secretary of State may determine.>
      ( ) Where a court makes a disqualification order, it shall also send the driving licence and its counterpart, on their being produced to the court, to the Secretary of State at such address as he may determine.'.
      No. 41, in page 16, line 29, leave out "40A(8)" and insert "40A(10)".—[Mr. Rooker.]

    Clause 19

      REDUCED BENEFIT DECISIONS
      Mr. Andrew George: I beg to move amendment No. 81, in page 20, line 7, at end insert—
      '(9A) Where the parent with care has complied with obligations imposed by section 6 of the 1991 Act, the Secretary of State shall be legally responsible for the confidentiality of information relating to the parent with care.'.
      This takes us back to a debate that we had on amendment No. 76, and touches on the issue of good cause. I appreciate that in her responses on this matter the Minister has thus far demonstrated a sincere acceptance of its seriousness. Secretaries of State change, but under the Bill as it stands, we have to trust the Secretary of State to observe an appropriately precautionary principle when dealing with cases involving domestic violence and violence against women. Despite all the assurances, which I believe are genuine, the matter depends in part on the

      419
      Secretary of State's discretion, and in part on an unclear provision about the basis of the evidence for the threat of violence.
      8.45 pm
      I shall provide an example of a failure, not by the CSA, but by ourselves as legislators, which demonstrates the need for caution in the Bill. It is the case of a constituent of mine, formerly Dina Russell of Torquay, but known as Georgina McCarthy when, tragically, in May 1998, she was horrifically murdered by her former husband, Paul Russell. The crime occurred in her home in Penzance, in the presence of her one-and-a-half-year-old son, who was subsequently abducted. Her former husband was convicted of the crime in June last year.
      That case demonstrates the failure of the system, because everything was done that could have been done in the face of a known and recorded threat. There were witnesses to the fact that Paul Russell intended to murder that poor woman. Every means available within the system and under the law was employed to protect her, but the system itself failed, with tragic results. Paul Russell used family law—section 8 of the Children Act 1989—to obtain a seek-and-find order from the court. The legal process was quashed, but not before it had already provided him with sufficient information to establish in which part of the country his former wife lived. The case exposed weaknesses in court procedure, the Children Act and family law, and flaws in the interplay between civil and criminal law. Court procedures were observed and the police and social services did everything according to the law in order to protect that women, but, ultimately, they and the system failed.
      The CSA does not come into that case; Paul Russell did not use it to track down his former wife. However, there is a fear that the provisions of the Bill as it stands might enable women who have been subjected to domestic violence to be tracked down. About 100 women are murdered every year, and about half know their murderer. Far too many women suffer domestic violence; whether that ultimately leads to murder or severe harm, it is obviously not in the best interests of women or children for the system to permit information to be made available to husbands, partners, former husbands and former partners who might use the information to track them down.
      I accept that the clause provides a reasonable belt around this issue, and earlier responses from the Minister have reassured me that she and her Department have a genuine intention to ensure that everything is done to protect women who are liable to be threatened with abuse and violence. The purpose of the amendment is to provide braces—I apologise for the use of a male gender metaphor—as well as the belt of the clause. The amendment lays responsibility on the Secretary of State to ensure that information relating to the parent carer remains confidential. That would put an added pressure on the Secretary of State to be extremely circumspect about the circumstances in which information is divulged.
      As Members of Parliament, we all have a heavy burden to bear in voting through legislation that could have a damaging effect on people's lives. I appreciate that the amendment would impose a heavy burden on the Secretary of State. Serious concerns surround this issue and I know that the Minister is aware of them. Many
      420
      organisations have written to Ministers about the clause and about the evidence that the Secretary of State may require to justify that there is good cause not to disclose information. It is not clear at this stage at what level that evidence is required. One way of providing some assurance is to lay a legal responsibility on the Secretary of State to ensure, in cast iron terms, that the information is protected and that women are protected also within the system.
      In the earlier debate on this matter, the Minister maintained that the CSA had improved its service. She said that it gathers information discreetly and informs people who come into contact with it of all the available options and the consequences of certain actions. However, that did not add up to a detailed explanation of how the CSA would fully assess the risk to the parent with care, or the child, in each case. The amendment seeks to place pressure for such an explanation to be made by proposing that the Secretary of State—effectively the CSA—should be liable if the confidentiality of information is breached. We fear most that that breach of confidentiality will result in danger to women.
      On that basis, we believe that the amendment properly reflects the seriousness with which the relevant information is to be gathered and protected by the CSA. I hope that the Government will accept it. It provides the necessary assurances to many women who fear acts of violence, which none of us wants to see perpetrated as a result of leaked information.
      Angela Eagle: I start by assuring the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) that we take extremely seriously issues of violence against women. I hope that I can reassure him that protections are already in place that adequately ensure that we can make good our concern and minimise any risk to women who may be subject to violence.
      Before dealing with that, I shall say a little about the tragic case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, involving Georgina McCarthy. The Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department are considering the issues surrounding the court processes for contact proceedings, which led to that individual being able to track down his ex-partner, with the consequences that the hon. Gentleman described to the House. I know that, when conclusions have been reached, the hon. Gentleman will be informed of them. However, as he said, the CSA was not involved in that instance in the breach of confidentiality that led to such a tragic result.
      Amendment No. 81 would create a legal obligation for the CSA to protect the confidentiality of information provided by parents with care on benefit who are treated as applying for a child support calculation. That is an important matter and raises the question of what guarantees can be given to any client of the CSA.
      Parents with care are treated as applying for child support under section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991 if they are claiming income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance. There is a right to opt out of child support action, but opting out can attract a benefit penalty, as we discussed earlier. The benefit penalty is applied if the parent cannot show that child support action would lead to a risk of harm or undue distress.
      A benefit penalty may also be imposed if the parent with care refuses without good reason to provide sufficient information to enable the non-resident parent to

      421
      be traced. Given that she has limited choice in the matter, it is important that she can feel confident that her confidentiality will be protected.
      I must emphasise that, if there is a risk of harm or undue distress to the parent with care or her children, she is not required to provide information to the agency at all—she can opt out of the process before it begins, without any penalty being imposed.
      There is an important second line of protection—the absolute duty on the CSA to protect personal information. The Government attach considerable weight to that duty, both because we are committed to the proper handling of personal information, and because we want people to be confident in using the CSA.
      To assess and collect child support, we inevitably need to know a lot about the parents and their families. Much of the information is very personal, and no one else should be able to gain access to it through the CSA.
      I can assure hon. Members that the CSA takes seriously its obligations to protect the confidentiality of personal information about its clients. That is why anyone working for the CSA is guilty of a criminal offence if, without lawful authority, he or she discloses information, acquired in the course of that employment, that relates to a particular person. Such an offence can, on conviction, result in a prison sentence of up to two years. I can tell the House that, since 1995, three employees of the agency have been dismissed from that employment for making information available.
      Clearly, information must be disclosed to the other parent to allow him or her to understand how maintenance liability has been assessed. That information includes, for example, details of the non-resident parent's net income and the relevant qualifying children. Legislation permits, and carefully specifies, such disclosure.
      However, the CSA must never disclose a parent's address or any other information that may lead to that person being located. Parents also have a right to refuse to allow a tribunal or court to reveal such details.
      That is an important safeguard. It protects the whereabouts of parents, in particular women who may be at risk of abuse from their ex-partners if their address becomes known. I am pleased to say that the CSA has an excellent record in that area. It also reassures parents with care who are treated as applying for child support when they claim benefit, but their whereabouts will remain confidential.
      Amendment No. 81 is unnecessary because child support legislation already provides adequate and robust protection for personal information provided by clients to the CSA. The amendment provides protection to parents with care who are treated as applying for child support under section 6 of the 1991 Act. However, the existing legislative safeguards in the 1991 Act prevent unauthorised disclosure of information for all CSA clients, not just those who qualify under section 6.
      With those reassurances that we have in place a robust system that has been proved to work, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
      9 pm
      Mr. Andrew George: I am encouraged by the Minister's response, by the sympathetic and helpful response that I received from each of the three Departments involved indirectly in the case that I raised, and by the fact that an interdepartmental body on domestic violence has been set up to ensure a joined-up approach from Government. I hope that, as a result of the Bill, the Department of Social Security will be involved in that body.
      The Minister referred earlier to Mr. Justice Wall who, I understand, following the case to which I referred, will be leading a short inquiry into the treatment of domestic violence cases in the courts. I appreciate that the Government now accept that that is a matter of great concern, and, I hope, if necessary, to push the matter further.
      The Ministers response to amendment No. 81 was partially reassuring. It is reassuring that there have been three scalps from the CSA staff as a result of action taken to ensure that confidential information is not divulged. However, I and my hon. Friends are concerned not only with human error on the front line, but with whether the system is sufficiently robust and rigorous.
      Given our debate on amendment No. 76, although I am partially reassured by the Minister, we shall seek to withdraw amendment No. 81 in the hope that there will be another opportunity to reflect on both aspects of the matter as raised in amendments Nos. 76 and 81 in another place. On that basis, I am happy to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

    Schedule 3
      AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO CHILD SUPPORT
      Amendments made: No. 49, in page 89, line 39, at end insert—

      'The Army Act 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz. 2 c.18)
      A1.—(1) Section 150A of the Army Act 1955 (enforcement of maintenance assessment by deductions from pay) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsections (1), (2)(a), (3)(a) (twice) and (4), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".
      (3) In subsection (3) (twice), for "the assessment" there shall be substituted "the calculation".

      The Air Force Act 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz. 2 c.19)
      A2.—(1) Section 150A of the Air Force Act 1955 (enforcement of maintenance assessment by deductions from pay) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsections (1), (2)(a), (3)(a) (twice) and (4), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".
      (3) In subsection (3) (twice), for "the assessment" there shall be substituted "the calculation".

      The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c.18)
      A3.—(1) The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In section 29 (duration of continuing financial provision orders in favour of children, and age limit on making certain orders in their favour)—

      423

      (a) in subsections (5)(a), (7) (three times) and (8)(a), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation";

      (b) in subsections (5)(a) and (b)(ii) and (6)(b), for "current assessment" there shall be substituted "current calculation";

      (c) in subsection (6)(b), for "maintenance assessments" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculations"; and

      (d) in subsection (6)(b), for "those assessments" there shall be substituted "those calculations".

      (3) In section 31 (variation, discharge, etc., of certain orders for financial relief)—

      (a) in subsections (11)(c) and (12)(a) and (c), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation"; and

      (b) in subsection (11) (twice), for "the assessment" there shall be substituted "the calculation".

      (4) In section 52 (interpretation), in subsection (1), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

      The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act 1978 (c.22)
      A4.—(1) The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act 1978 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In section 5 (age limit on making orders for financial provision for children and duration of such orders)—

      (a) in subsections (5)(a), (7) (three times) and (8)(a), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation";

      (b) in subsections (5)(a) and (b)(ii) and (6)(b), for "current assessment" there shall be substituted "current calculation"; and

      (c) in subsection (6)(b), for "those assessments" there shall be substituted "those calculations".

      (3) In section 20 (variation, revival and revocation of orders for periodical payments)—

      (a) in subsections (9A)(c) and (9B)(a) and (c), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation"; and

      (b) in subsection (9A) (three times), for "the assessment" there shall be substituted "the calculation".

      (4) In section 88 (interpretation), in subsection (1), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

      The Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 (c.37)
      A5.—(1) The Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In section 5 (variation and recall of decrees of aliment), in subsection (1A), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".
      (3) In section 7 (agreements about aliment), in subsection (2A), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".
      (4) In section 13 (orders for periodical allowance), in subsection (4A), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".
      (5) In section 16 (agreements about financial provision), in subsection (3)(d), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".
      (6) In section 27 (interpretation), in subsection (1), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

      The Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45)
      A6. In section 281 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (effect of discharge on a bankrupt), in subsection (5)(b), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

      The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 (c.18)
      A7.—(1) The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In section 72 (effect of sequestration on diligence against earnings), in subsection (4A), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".
      (3) In section 106 (interpretation), in the definition of "maintenance order", in paragraph (j), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

      The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c.1)
      A8.—(1) The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In section 347B (qualifying maintenance payments)—

      (a) in subsections (8) and (9)(a) and (c), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation";

      (b) in subsection (9)(b) and (c), for "the assessment" there shall be substituted "the calculation"; and

      (c) for subsection (11) there shall be substituted—

      "(11) In this section "maintenance calculation" means a maintenance calculation made under the Child Support Act 1991 or a maintenance assessment made under the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991."
      (3) In section 617 (social security benefits and contributions), in subsection (2)(ae), for "section 24 of the Child Support Act 1995 or under any corresponding enactment" there shall be substituted "any enactment corresponding to section 24 of the Child Support Act 1995".

      The Finance Act 1988 (c.39)
      A9. In the Finance Act 1988, in each of subsection (5A) of section 36 (annual payments) and subsection (8A) of section 38 (maintenance payments under existing obligations: 1989–90 onwards), for "maintenance assessment made" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation or maintenance assessment made respectively".

      The Children Act 1989 (c.41)
      A10.—(1) Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (financial provision for children) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In paragraph 3—

      (a) in sub-paragraph (5)(a), (7) (three times) and (8)(a), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation";

      (b) in sub-paragraph (5)(a) and (b)(ii) and (6)(b), for "current assessment" there shall be substituted "current calculation";

      (c) in sub-paragraph (6)(b), for "maintenance assessments" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculations"; and

      (d) in sub-paragraph (6)(b), for "those assessments" there shall be substituted "those calculations".

      (3) In paragraph 6—

      (a) in sub-paragraph (9) (three times), for "the assessment" there shall be substituted "the calculation"; and

      (b) in sub-paragraph (9)(c), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

      (4) In paragraph 16(3), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".'.
      No. 50, in page 90, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert—
      ', after "any application" there shall be inserted "made or treated as made".'.
      No. 51, in page 92, line 35, at end insert—

      'The Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c.5)
      In section 7A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (sharing of functions as regards certain claims and information), in subsection (6)(a)—

      (a) after "application" there shall be inserted "(or an application treated as having been made)"; and

      (b) for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".'.

      No. 52, in page 92, line 40, at end insert—
      '(3) Section 24 (which provides for the making of regulations under which compensation could be paid for a reduction in child support maintenance attributable to changes in child support legislation, and which is now spent) shall cease to have effect.

      Prisoners' Earnings Act 1996 (c.33)
      In section 1 of the Prisoners' Earnings Act 1996 (power to make deductions and impose levies), in subsection (4), in paragraph (d) of the definition of "net weekly earnings", for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".'.—[Mr. Rooker.]
    New Clause 9

      EXTENSION OF INVALID CARE ALLOWANCE FOR BEREAVED CARERS
      '.—In section 70 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(10) The Secretary of State shall make regulations in respect of persons who cease to be in receipt of invalid care allowance as a result of the death of the person in respect of whose care the allowance has been claimed.
      (10A) These regulations shall set the condition for the award to be satisfied for a period of eight weeks from the date on which that person ceased to be in receipt of invalid care allowance.".'.—[Mr. Burstow.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Paul Burstow: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause is born out of an anxiety that Liberal Democrats share about the adequacy and effectiveness of the state second pension for carers today. Many carers will never benefit from the introduction of the state second pension. The new clause deals with a specific problem that affects carers who undertake caring responsibilities, and tries to ensure that additional money is put in their pockets to improve their lives now.
      Approximately 120,000 people are long-term carers, who have been caring for more than five years; 32,000 carers have been caring for more than 10 years. Many of them will not receive any benefit from the state second pension. The new clause would therefore extend the payment of invalid care allowance for eight weeks after the death of the person who is being cared for.
      We are considering bereavement and the way in which we acknowledge the sensitivities around bereavement. The system presents a cliff edge for carers. One day they
      426
      have a caring responsibility, the next day the state completely withdraws the benefits that they receive for caring.
      I shall explain why we believe that the matter deserves further attention. We want to highlight the problems that bereaved carers suffer. Hon. Members know that the majority of carers receive invalid care allowance for caring for relatives such as children, parents or partners. In the case of the death of a spouse, the new clause would financially help the surviving partner through the bereavement, in some small way.
      It could be argued that there are no grounds for doing that and that such a provision would be unusual in the context of our benefit system. However, that is not the case. There is a precedent that applies directly to carers. The carers premium is paid on top of income support to those who are entitled to invalid care allowance for eight weeks after the death of the person who was cared for. It is more generous than the new clause because it establishes the right to a further eight weeks of payment when a cared-for person has moved into permanent residential care. We argue that the principle of the carers premium, which gives a breathing space to the carer, should apply to invalid care allowance in general.
      If the provision worked in the same way as the carers premium, it would cost an additional £5 million per annum. Our proposal is not as generous—although we would like to be more generous—and should therefore cost less.
      When such amendments are tabled, Ministers often express anxiety, perhaps understandably, about the constraints that the Government's ancient and rather decrepit information technology systems place on them when the administration of benefits is changed. In Committee, we had an interesting exchange about the number of releases that were being planned to CSA software. That led me to ask a written question to glean more information about releases.
      I discovered through the written answer that two releases are planned in the next three years for invalid care allowance. One will deal with the production of restricted order books, which account for the recipient reaching retirement age, or changes to that person's disability living allowance or attendance allowance. That provides an opportunity to tackle another long-standing Liberal Democrat anxiety. Invalid care allowance should probably be extended to people of retirement age who continue to carry a caring burden.
      The second release deals with a range of system administrative enhancements. That seems to be a general catch-all that could also apply to the new clause, enabling it to be given effect without requiring an additional release of the necessary software and systems. In that context, I hope that that concern can be overcome.
      Our new clause would enable another concern to be addressed. Carers are presented with the fact that their ICA stops on the day that their partner dies. As a result, they have little income and have to go back to the jobcentre to sign on, which presents them with the prospect of the single work-focused gateway and an interview with the advisers who are now in place to help people back to work. Does the House want someone who has suffered a bereavement after many years of caring to face an interview with an undoubtedly well-meaning person who might mistakenly not defer that interview for

      427
      a time sufficient to acknowledge the bereavement? The option of paying ICA for a further eight weeks could overcome that concern.
      The new clause would make sure that carers are not forced to move straight from the grave side to the jobcentre, which would be wrong. It is affordable, fair and would improve the lot of carers.
      Mr. Pickles: I intend to speak for only a few moments, but first I apologise to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for missing the early part of his speech. He did himself a disservice by saying that the proposal would cost £5 million a year. I am not sure that that is correct. I think that it would cost a little less. I may be wrong, but I understand that the carers premium includes a roll-on when a cared-for person goes into permanent residential care. I do not know the precise cost—the Minister may tell us—but I think that it would be less than £5 million.
      The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say implicitly that the Liberal Democrats have come round to the Conservative way of thinking on invalid care allowance policy and ensuring that the rule under which ICA stops being paid at 65 disappears. We welcome that.
      Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Pickles: Of course. I am only too pleased to do so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is about to announce more policies on which he agrees with the Conservatives.
      Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As someone who will undoubtedly have made a great and close study of our previous general election manifesto, he will be aware that we have held the policy position that I annunciated again today for a very long time. We welcome the Conservative party joining us.
      Mr. Pickles: Those remarks are not much of a guide as we are used to alternating, yin-yang policy from the Liberal Democrats. I was trying to be nice about their new clause and, despite that provocation, I shall happily go on to be so. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our system can sometimes be a little harsh. A lot of benefits stop when one person dies and another is left to sort things out. We all have experience of winding up our parents' estates and people's minds are on all kinds of things at such a distressing time. This relatively modest proposal would provide a breathing space.
      I was involved in a discussion in a statutory instrument Committee about the way in which we get bereaved people into the gateway. I was surprised to learn—even given the fact that the payments that we were discussing would end after a year—that those receiving bereavement benefits would enter the gateway so suddenly.
      9.15 pm
      I think it reasonable for a bereaved person not to have to engage in a single-gateway interview. In most cases, the carers allowance would stop immediately, and the financial circumstances of the bereaved person might well force that person to engage in a work-focused interview without being in an appropriate mental state. I do not believe that the Government want that to happen.
      428
      We have considerable sympathy with the new clause. The Government may want to reflect on the possibility of achieving its aim by other means. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam intended his new clause to be, as it were, a probing amendment, but we think it would be advisable to give the Government some time in which to consider the matter.
      Genuine problems are experienced by bereaved carers. The close relationship that was involved makes it that much more difficult. Even if the Government do not wish to accept the new clause as it is drafted, they may want to try to relieve the burden experienced by carers in the critical first few months after a bereavement.
      Angela Eagle: New clause 9 would extend the period of entitlement for all recipients of invalid care allowance to eight weeks after the death of the person who was cared for, and in respect of whose care the allowance was being paid. I have considerable sympathy with the intention, which is to help a small but vulnerable group of carers who receive ICA for looking after a disabled person who subsequently dies.
      I am grateful for the opportunity to make clear the Government's agenda for carers, following publication of the report on the national strategy for carers last year. In his preface to the report, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
      Carers are among the unsung heroes of British life.
      He said that they
      should be properly recognised and properly supported.
      I suspect that all hon. Members endorse that view.
      The national strategy put down a marker by stating that the Government would
      keep under review how financial support for carers—including Invalid Care Allowance—can best meet needs—
      that is, the needs of carers. A few days later, the report of the royal commission on long-term care suggested that
      the system could do more to offer support for carers.
      The Government are clearly committed to reviewing the financial support available to carers. In doing that, we must take account of the work being done to prepare our White Paper response to the royal commission's report. I can confirm that financial assistance for carers, including ICA, is being considered carefully. We will of course consult the Carers National Association and other representative groups as and when we have specific proposals to make.
      Mr. Burstow: Is the review of the care allowance part of the review that will lead to the White Paper dealing with long-term care, or is it considered a separate matter, subject to a separate report? If there is to be a separate report, when can we expect it to be dealt with here?
      Angela Eagle: I am always being asked to give exact dates in this context. As hon. Members will know, to give exact dates is to fall into a trap, because of the practicalities of government and the difficulty of securing agreement before delivering a honed Green or White Paper in a short time. However, the White Paper that responds to the royal commission must be written and developed with that in mind. My assumption is that they are separate documents. As I have said, the ICA itself and

      429
      the financial assistance that is given to carers are being looked at. The cut-off date is, by definition, one of the things that we are examining.
      I emphasise that the group of carers that the amendment seeks to help is small—a point that the hon. Gentleman made—although none the less deserving of consideration. Bereavement is a universally difficult time for those of us who have experienced it. Inevitably, family finances must be re-examined in many circumstances—for example, with the loss of the disabled person's income. Financial advice, including benefit advice, as well as practical or work-related advice, may have to be sought.
      In that context, the ONE process can be helpful. I reconfirm, given the comments by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), that there is a process whereby, if someone is bereaved and they say they could not cope with a work-focused interview, they will be given benefit advice and the interview will be deferred. There may be people in that position who would want such an interview to set some strategic goals. Different people react differently, but deferral is a possibility. That will be sympathetically considered in each individual case through the ONE process.
      The amendment may not achieve as much as its supporters hope. There is already protection for many carers whose need is greatest: for example, those on low incomes who have lost a spouse. Carers who receive income support and the carer premium, which is the increase paid specifically for people entitled to ICA, have their benefit adjusted to take into account the loss of that ICA and will continue to receive the benefit, including the carer premium, for eight weeks. In addition, during that eight-week period, they are exempt from the need to be available for, and actively seeking, employment to qualify for income support. That leeway allows them time to adjust and to seek advice.
      Where the death is that of a spouse, bereavement benefits are usually paid very promptly: within a few days of the claim. As such payments are made in preference to ICA, an ICA run-on would be of little or no material assistance for those carers.
      For those who are most vulnerable and in greatest need, their income is already protected on the death of the disabled person for whom they have been caring, despite the loss of ICA. In practical terms, the amendment would help only those carers whose income is over income support level.
      None the less, whether it is a well targeted proposal is a matter of judgment. I hope that I have made it clear that, in broader terms, the Government are strongly aware of the need for adequate financial support for carers. We are aware of the existing commitment to keep that under review in the context of longer-term care issues and the need to address the concerns of carers in the round. In the light of that, it would be difficult, for a number of reasons, to anticipate specific and piecemeal changes at this stage.
      We are looking to examine the matter in the round and to take forward a strategy, not to tackle it piecemeal, as the amendment does. I hope that, in the light of those comments, the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
      Miss McIntosh: I make a brief point following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow).
      The Minister has been sympathetic to the amendment. I would be delighted to see it in the Bill in some shape or form, if not exactly as it appears at the moment. The Minister has been generous enough to say that the Government will look at the matter in the round. The amendment has the benefit of reflecting the policy of the official Opposition. It is obviously commendable for that reason. The support would be given only for a limited period and to an easily identifiable group of people.
      As the Minister has admitted, the help would come at a time of particular vulnerability and difficulty for those people. It would be most generous if the Government, while not acceding necessarily to the precise words of the amendment, examined the matter in the round and saw fit to continue the level of support in the shape of that bereavement benefit. That would be most welcome.
      Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) for supporting the new clause. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) rightly discerned, it was intended to stimulate debate and encourage the Government to put on record their thinking and the direction that they plan to take in modernising—to use their language—the invalid care allowance.
      It has long been the view of the Liberal Democrats that the invalid care allowance should undergo a comprehensive reform, becoming a genuine carers' benefit that reflects their needs. The Minister was right to say that it is better to undertake such reforms in a comprehensive way.
      Tonight we have focused on a particular concern that was raised in the royal commission report. The considerable sympathy that the Minister expressed is most welcome. However, it is important to recognise that there is a strong need to address financial issues affecting carers. Carers still want to know how long they will have to wait for the Government's definitive proposals to be enacted. That is the key. We are not talking about large sums of money for carers—it is only £39.95—but the savings for the taxpayer and the rest of society are considerable and we need to recognise that.
      The new clause is a modest measure with a modest cost and it recognises the value of carers. However, in view of the Minister's generous response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      MANNER OF PAYMENT OF BENEFIT NOT RESTRICTED TO AUTOMATED CREDIT TRANSFER
      '.—In section 5(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, at the end of paragraph (i) there is inserted ", but the regulations may not require automated credit transfer to be the only manner of paying a benefit."2.—[Mr. Webb.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Webb: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

      431
      A large number of hon. Members—representing five political parties—have put their names to new clause 26. For the avoidance of doubt, although the amendment paper lists the most recently added names and those who tabled the amendment, other hon. Members, some of whom are here tonight, have also put their names to the new clause, demonstrating the broad concern around the issue.
      The future of the post office network is a matter of concern to all our constituents. The depth of public concern about the threat to the post office network caused by the intended movement of benefit payments to automated credit transfer has stirred communities up and down the land. My regional newspaper, the Western Daily Press, has led the way with a petition that now has more than 2 million signatures and is growing by thousands every day. That campaign has voiced the concerns of people in the west country, but it is now spreading across the country. People are responding because of the affection in which they hold their local post offices.
      The new clause would include in the regulations that apply to the payment of benefits the notion that the Government could not require people to receive benefits by means of automated credit transfer. There is a question as to whether that is the Government's intention, and the answer seems to depend on whether one listens to the Department of Social Security or the Department of Trade and Industry. In the autumn of last year the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters saying that by the end of the period 2003–05 all benefits would be paid by ACT. The letter was marked "for publication". Since then, the Government have softened their language a little, saying that there will be no compulsion, yet the Department of Social Security plans to save £400 million. The Department will not save £400 million unless pretty much everyone switches over to ACT. Regardless of whether the word "compulsion" is used, the sums involved imply the expectation that pretty much everyone will receive their money by that means.
      New clause 26 seeks to restrain change until we—many other hon. Members and I—have assurances that the post office network will be safe. The critical backdrop to the debate is that the post office network is ebbing away. It has been ebbing away not only since 1 May 1997, but for a decade or two. What is very worrying, however, is that the pace of change is accelerating. In the past decade or two, about 100 post offices have closed each year. In the past couple of years, since the general election—I do not suppose that the two things are necessarily directly related—more than 200 post offices have closed each year. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) met the Minister for Competitiveness and was told that, this year, there will be no fewer than 500 closures. If that figure is correct, it is horrific, and it certainly demonstrates the urgency of the issue. That many closures would wreak havoc in communities across the land.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Paul Tyler: Does my hon. Friend accept that, to some extent, it is academic whether the Government wish to employ some compulsion? If so many post offices have ceased to be viable in rural areas, there is really no access to post offices for many people.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. May I assist the House? As new clause 26 does not deal
      432
      with post offices, we should not be talking in detail about post office closures. That issue can be raised in an Adjournment debate or by some other means.
      Mr. Webb: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The connection that I am seeking to make—which I hope that you will feel is in order—is that, in the new clause, we are trying to prevent the Government from doing something that they seem to be threatening to do: require benefits to be paid by automated credit transfer. We believe that, if there were such a requirement, it would have a devastating affect on the post office network.
      Miss McIntosh: Can the hon. Gentleman assist me in explaining to the one third of my constituents who do not have bank accounts what the impact would be if the Government were to proceed with payment by ACT? Would they perhaps lose out on that payment?
      Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady highlights a very important grey area in the Government's proposals. We really do not know what will happen if ACT becomes the norm or compulsory. We do not know what the accounts will look like, or on what basis people will be able to withdraw money.
      There is a critical point here. Ministers always say, "Don't worry, you'll still be able to go to a post office to get your money." However, that rather presumes that there will still be a local post office at which to get the money. The nub of the issue is that, if we move to compulsory ACT, it will so undermine the post office network that many of our communities will not have a post office to go to.
      Mr. Bercow: Although the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that Ministers regularly offer the assurance in the House that people will still be able to claim in person, does he agree that communications from both the Benefits Agency and the Royal Mail have given the impression that there will eventually be no alternative to ACT, and that that is the source of grave anxiety for hundreds of thousands of people across the country?
      Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there is grave anxiety. Very often, for benefits recipients, information on whether to choose ACT is presented in a very loaded manner. It is not really a free choice at all.
      Mr. Browne: As the hon. Gentleman is explaining the thinking behind new clause 26 and the effect that it may have on poor people, and given his very obvious expertise on social policy, will he share with the House his view on whether the one third of unbanked people—who are denied access to a whole range of services—should be encouraged in proper social policy to have bank accounts and access to the United Kingdom's financial networks?
      Mr. Webb: They should have access to financial services of an appropriate nature. My view is that those should be delivered ideally by the post office network. If the amendment is not passed and the Government go for compulsory ACT, that option may be closed, as the post office network may not be there to allow financial inclusion for just those people about whom the hon. Gentleman and I are concerned.

      433
      I have conducted a survey in my constituency, and I have the responses here—they can be independently verified, should that be required. I wrote to my sub-post offices on the subject of ACT, and asked what the implications of our failing to get the amendment through tonight would be for their businesses. I asked:
      How would it would affect your business if the Government go ahead with plans to pay benefits into bank accounts?
      That is an unloaded question, as one would expect. The first response I had was
      It would close us down.
      Others said that the post office and shop went hand in hand, and that one would not survive without the other on the basis of present turnover. Many sub-post offices depend on benefits transactions; not just the money that they get for handling benefit transactions, but the other business that that brings in. The one depends on the other.
      Mr. Field: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not write the press release before he sent out the survey. Did he ask sub-postmasters whether they would favour a system in which the Government moved to ACT, but used some of the substantial savings that taxpayers would receive to make sure that all sub-post offices could run simple banking services? What would he write in the press release before he sent out that survey?
      Mr. Webb: I am not convinced that the subject of my press release falls within the scope of the amendment. However, banking is seen as an important adjunct to what post offices do, and measures along the lines proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would be valued by the post offices.
      Mr. Bercow: You rightly reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are talking not about post offices but about the possibility of compulsory automated credit transfer. Could the hon. Gentleman tell me how many people currently collecting in person—roughly, if not precisely—in the Northavon constituency would be affected in the event that his amendment were not successful?
      Mr. Webb: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman takes such an interest in my constituency. The proportion of new pensioners who opt for ACT is about half, and the proportion is similar for child benefit recipients. However, it is significant that those two benefits are the two most likely to go for ACT. Given a loaded choice, only half the public choose to have those benefits paid through ACT. Only 10 per cent. of income support recipients go for ACT.
      A Labour councillor wrote to my local paper to say that I was trying to force people to go to their post offices. This is not about forcing people; that is what we fear the Government are trying to do. We want to give people choice; not a loaded choice or compulsion, but a genuine free choice. If the Government reject the new clause tonight, they will leave open the option of compulsion. If they reject new clause 26—which says that the Government may not force people—the only possible reason is that they do want to force people. They want to leave open the option of forcing people, and that is what we oppose.
      Mr. Jim Cousins: It is clear from what he has said that the hon. Gentleman
      434
      would be happy to accept the idea of ACT if the Post Office could offer a banking platform. That is not what the new clause says.
      Mr. Webb: We are not happy to give the Government carte blanche to go ahead with ACT until we know what will make up for the loss of businesses that post offices will face.
      Mr. Rooker: I do not want to provoke the hon. Gentleman, who has told us about his survey of post offices. However, what about his constituents? In his constituency last week, 20 people moved to ACT; another 20 will do the same this week. That is what is happening in every constituency, as it is the choice that people are making. Does he think that they are wrong, and would he like to stop them? Does he think that they should not have the right to make that decision?
      Mr. Webb: I recently addressed a meeting of the Bristol branch of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, attended by about 60 or 70 angry people. They told me that people were confused by the communications that they receive from the Benefits Agency and from other bodies, and did not understand that they had a choice. Sometimes people who run sub-post offices are told by people whom they do not see very often that they have opted to get their money through their bank account. On being asked why, they say that they have received a letter from the Government saying that they had to.
      The Minister must remember that we are talking about people who are not very sophisticated financially.
      Mr. Rooker: Come off it.
      Mr. Webb: The Minister says that, but in a recent Adjournment debate he accused sub-postmasters of telling porkies. That is what he said and it is on the record.
      Mr. Rooker: Well, they did.
      Mr. Webb: In a recent Question Time on this issue the Government accused Liberal Democrats of scaremongering. That is not what we are doing. The rate of closure of sub-post offices is accelerating every week.
      Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me in, and I will not intervene again. Is he seriously saying that pensioners—unknowingly and through confusion—choose to get their pensions four weeks in arrears, rather than every week? That delay happens when people move to ACT. Does he maintain that pensioners—all unknowing—say, "Oh, yes, I'll wait four weeks and get my money in arrears through the bank, but I don't understand why I can't continue to have it weekly."? That is abject nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
      Mr. Webb: Today, the Minister's Department has sent out 2 million letters to pensioners.
      Mr. Rooker: No, it has not done so yet.
      Mr. Webb: But it is planning to. Why are those letters being sent? Because pensioners are not claiming one of

      435
      their entitlements under the benefits system. One of the reasons for that is the complexity that they encounter in the system.
      The form needed for transfer to ACT has a big blank space for bank details. The Minister has just said that no pensioners receiving the form will think that they are being instructed to fill in that space, but I assure him that they do think that, and that they fill in the space and send off the form.
      I offer the Minister a challenge. If I can come up with the name and address of someone who has been misled in that way by the Government—even if not deliberately—will the Minister publicly apologise for accusing me of misleading the House on this matter? I should be happy to give way if the Minister wants to respond to that challenge.
      We want to protect vital community facilities and to give people choice. The Minister asked whether we considered that those who opted for ACT were wrong to do so, but that option is absolutely fine for those who prefer it. However, we are interested in the people who do not mind too much whether their payments go into a bank account or are made through the post office. If the Government force people to move to automated credit transfer, there will be a critical mass that will make post offices unviable.
      9.45 pm
      We are most concerned about pensioners and disabled people, for whom the post office is often a lifeline. If they do not turn up, the postmaster or postmistress will know. They are thereby part of the community.
      I happened to glance at the Evening Standard tonight in the Tea Room to see what the Government are doing for pensioners. I saw the headline "Ministers want trendy name for pensioners". The article says:
      Some of Whitehall's finest minds are working on the problem, while the Government is also seeking outside help to come up with the new title.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have a new clause before us, and the hon. Gentleman should be speaking to it.
      Mr. Webb: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are trying to defend Britain's pensioners, considering that we have a Government who come up with nonsense like giving them 75p. We are tabling the new clause to protect the network of post offices that all our constituents have told us they value. I hope that the new clause will have the support of the House.
      Mr. Field: The new clause will test whether political parties can see beyond the next press release and whether they are serious about the concern expressed on both sides of the House about the future of our sub-post office system.
      The House has not yet had a lobby from outside which puts the fear of God into Members of Parliament representing marginal constituencies. Next month, when the sub-postmasters and postmistresses come to town, it is likely that some people may not feel that the result of the next election is quite as certain as they thought.
      We want the Government to behave as constructively as possible. Concern has been expressed on both sides of the House about the future of our sub-post offices, not
      436
      only because of the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) about the effect on vulnerable groups, but because of the key role that those post offices play in keeping local communities together. Those local communities are as real in Birkenhead, which is formed of six villages, as they are in more traditional country areas.
      The test is how to use our voices—perhaps not our votes—to further that goal tonight. I agree that, if we divide the House, there may be press releases in it for some people. We must judge whether, if we accept the new clause on the method of payments, we will secure the long-term future of our post offices more effectively. As we know, the Bill will go to another place, and it is inconceivable that an amendment such as this will not be moved there, probably successfully. By then, this Parliament will have been subjected to its first serious lobby. Some of my colleagues may realise for the first time that they may not have an automatic ticket back to the House of Commons after the next election. They may be more anxious to preserve their sub-post offices than they are at present.
      I hope that the aim is not merely to preserve the method of payment. I had responsibility for the benefit card for 14 weeks, as I had for so many other issues in the Department of Social Security. It seemed that such gains would come from automated credit transfer that we should think positively about it. Because the gains were so great, it also seemed that we, as taxpayers, should put aside some of those savings to secure the future of sub-post offices, not merely by subsidies, but by ensuring that they were in a position to offer simple banking services. If they could offer those services, not only would they be able to participate in an ACT system, they could take on a role from which banks are progressively withdrawing in all our communities.
      Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does it not amount to the fact that the Government have to convince the House—Labour Members more than Opposition Members, perhaps—that there is a real prospect that banks will open facilities for elderly people, who will want them only to receive their pensions and make disbursements at post offices? In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's experience, which spans a period far longer than 14 weeks, will he tell us whether there is any realistic prospect that banks will be prepared to do that unless compelled to do so by the Government? Does he think the Government will do that? That is the nub of the debate.
      Mr. Field: I am not sure whether that is the nub of the debate, given the substance of the new clause. I am not against Governments trying to compel people but, if one takes that course, it is good to ensure that one can succeed. Two banks in Birkenhead have announced their closure. We could compel banks to provide certain services but, if they are not there, we are dealing only with theoretical circumstances.
      I appeal to Opposition Members to make their voices heard as clearly as possible on the new clause. The Bill is only part of the way through its proceedings; it will go to another place. The House will shortly receive one of the more effective lobbies of this Parliament. If the other place tabled an amendment, the Government would have to accept it or make alternative proposals.
      Our aim is genuinely not to score off the Government with press releases and so on but to win some advances for the most vulnerable people in our constituencies. The

      437
      best way to do that is to convince the Government that we support the move to ACT, provided that some of the considerable gains that it will bring to taxpayers will be invested in our sub-post offices so that they can offer simple banking services. In that way, we shall keep the largest possible number of our sub-post offices; and financial exclusion, which now rightly seems to concern both sides of the House, will be tackled more effectively.
      I realise that to follow the course that I advocate would be to deny some of us press releases. However, we may be denied them only for a few weeks, because, when we consider the Bill on its return from another place, we may be able to issue press releases stating that we have secured real advances for our poorest constituents, rather than that the Government have failed to accept a new clause.
      I appeal to hon. Members: let us make our points as effectively as possible. Let us convince the Government that many of us may go into the Lobby against them on another occasion, if we do not obtain the changes that we want. Let that significant lobby of Parliament work on those with marginal constituencies. Let us return to the measure when the Government have had a chance to introduce more constructive provisions.
      Mr. Pickles: You rightly ruled that this matter relates to automatic credit transfer, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, ACT also relates to post offices and to the provision of banking services in various areas. To avoid any doubt, I declare an interest. My wife works for Barclays bank, although I suspect that my remarks will not endear her to the board.
      It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), although I lost count of the number of times that he told us about press releases and about what the Opposition are supposed to do tonight. I have always held the old-fashioned view that such nuances of political life as whether one presses a matter to a vote are among the few things best conducted by consenting adults in private. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman chose to tell us with a megaphone what we are supposed to be doing. Believe me, we have worked out the tactics for ourselves. Whatever we, along with other hon. Members, decide to do about the Liberal Democrats' new clause, it will be in the best interests of ensuring that the Government have plenty of time to reflect on this important issue.
      I am a little concerned because we are beginning to polarise into two groups. There are those who say that the matter is about post offices, and those on the sunlit upland, moving towards automatic credit transfer. The Prime Minister tells us of all the savings that are to be made.
      Mr. Swayne: Will my hon. Friend give way on the point concerning the Prime Minister?
      Mr. Pickles: I knew that I would provoke my hon. Friend by saying the words "Prime Minister".
      Mr. Swayne: This afternoon, the Prime Minister told the House that the Government had inherited the proposals from the previous Administration. I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) say on the record in the House that the
      438
      proposals were put to him but that he rejected them because he believed that the savings were illusory and that the social costs were far too great.
      Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend's recollection is absolutely correct. I caught only the latter part of Prime Minister's Question Time today, but it was pretty clear that the right hon. Gentleman was fairly flustered. I suppose that he can be forgiven for saying such a thing. I am sure that he will be at the Dispatch Box at the earliest opportunity tomorrow to correct it. My hon. Friend is right to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) rejected the idea—I know this because I have had discussions with him—because of the problems that it would cause rural post offices.
      We know that, despite the steady trudge of the 20 people a week in the constituency of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) who have changed to automatic credit transfer—I hope that, before the debate is over, the Minister of State will name them, because we would like to know who they are—only one in 10 pensioners have opted for ACT and, even among new pensioners, only one in three have done so.
      The rather glib statement that simple banking services will cure everything concerns me. Frankly, they will not. Simple banking services will not meet the needs of people who draw pensions or benefits. Let us look briefly at some of the problems. We know that a large number of recipients of pensions and benefits are described as the "unbanked". We know that part of the Cruickshank report, to which my hon. Friends have alluded, may contain a deal under which banks will provide services for everybody.
      If that occurs, we shall need to consider several practical things. First, help in understanding the operation of a bank account, particularly the management of it and the withdrawal of cash, will need to be offered. Anybody who doubts that cannot have an accurate recollection of their constituency surgeries. I have had to deal with a relatively elderly and confused person who had never had a bank account and who was dreadfully worried about how ACT would operate and whether it would result in debt. Some serious thought must be given to offering such people assistance. The obstacle is not insurmountable, but it will remain an obstacle unless we are able to do something about it.
      Quite a number of people have joint bank accounts. Will the money transferred reach the people for whom the benefit is intended? We debated earlier the problems of transfer of money from a parent with care to a child. There is a particular problem concerning accounts shared by those who are not husband and wife, which we need to address.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      It being Ten o'clock further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
      Question agreed to.
      Mr. Pickles: Will bank charges be imposed? Will people's pensions and benefits be eroded by bank charges? Will there be an overdraft facility on the bank charges and will benefit payments merely go towards reducing people's debts to the banks? What will happen if the payments of account holders infringe their agreements with the banks? What will happen if individuals do not qualify for a bank account or choose not to have one? We have to consider such questions if automated credit transfer is to be achieved.
      Offering simple banking services will not in itself solve the problems of post offices. There must be a place where not only can people receive payments, but sums can be paid in. I had a discussion with one of my local sub-postmasters who told me about ACT. He said that he had noticed a trend and that people of 65 would use ACT. However, as they got older and moved into their 80s, they reverted to being paid over the counter. That sounds bizarre. Why should they do that? The answer is that they are frailer; they no longer feel competent to drive a motor car; journeys into town are expensive; and they feel safer and more secure going to the local post office to receive payments rather than receiving them through their bank account. It is easier to receive payments over the counter.
      The Prime Minister thought—he may still—that ACT was a good idea. He recently announced that the Post Office would install 3,000 cashpoints in villages around the UK in co-operation with the high street banks and building societies; and that the cashpoints may be Post Office branded but will give people access to money and services from a number of different banks. I suppose that we should believe press reports. According to a report in The Daily Telegraph on 9 January—if it is in The Daily Telegraph, it must be true—the Post Office is now in secret talks with a series of Britain's top lenders in an attempt to win support for the plan and hopes not to charge customers a fee for using its cash machines unless it is forced to do so with the banks. Given the backdrop of what has happened in recent weeks, I am not entirely happy with the idea of a person's hard-earned pension money being paid out to the banks by way of cash transfer
      The hon. Member for Northavon referred to the additional pension that will be received, so would it not be truly ironic if that were eaten up by the charges of the major high street banks to ensure that a person could withdraw cash?
      Mr. Eric Martlew: The hon. Gentleman is attacking the banks.
      Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman is living in a time warp; he says that the Tories are attacking the banks. He has perhaps never understood that the Tory party is on the side of pensioners receiving a fair deal. I have obviously stirred him up, and it is nice to know that he has a view on things. I look forward to his contribution, which I am sure will be eloquent.
      We have received advice from Geoffrey Leigh, who is the development manager with the Norfolk Rural Community Council and a man of some importance. He says:
      I cannot see how many of these cash points will end up in villages. And it doesn't help with many of the lower-income people in rural areas who don't have a bank account. Post offices with these will need additional security. It may make life worse for them. The Government has failed to get to grips with problems faced by rural communities.
      440
      He is absolutely right.
      If the Prime Minister is to succeed in getting those 3,000 cashpoints put in, he will need post offices in which to install them. As the hon. Member for Northavon said, the rate of closure of post offices has accelerated. In 1993–94, sadly, 59 post offices closed; in 1995–96, the figure was 65; in 1997–98, 238 closed, and in 1999–2000, 232 closed. The hon. Gentleman said that this year the figure is likely to be 500. It seems that cash machines will be installed at the rate at which post offices are closing.
      Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend recall that there was a little controversy a few moments ago about the position of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)? Is my hon. Friend interested to learn that on 15 February, on Second Reading of the Postal Services Bill, at column 825 of Hansard, my right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that he had received advice about the damaging effect of the compulsory payment of benefits into bank accounts and accordingly rejected the silly proposal that the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has inadvisedly accepted?
      Mr. Pickles: Of course I remember that point in my speech: I would have appalling short-term memory problems if I had not retained that information. I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he has put on record exactly what the position was, and no doubt when the Prime Minister reads my hon. Friend's contribution over his cornflakes, he will say, "I must get to the House of Commons as soon as possible."
      Mr. Field: Where is he?
      Mr. Pickles: Where is the Prime Minister? Perhaps the Whip should go and summon him here now, but that would be an overreaction; tomorrow will be early enough for him to give the necessary apology.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If we dwell on this matter, we will be straying from the new clause.
      Mr. Pickles: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had wrung just about all the possible humour out of that point.
      We have serious problems that will not be solved by the short-term fix of simple banking services. In this highly competitive world, major high street banks will not be worried about providing simple banking services. I support the new clause.
      Mr. David Drew: I cannot echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), but this is an important debate, and although it concerns a particular new clause, it is one of a series of debates about the future of the Post Office. Although I can support the aims of my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), I am not sure that the new clause is the appropriate means of achieving them because it has not been thought through.
      I took note of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, and of course this debate is on-going in the sense that automated credit transfer is not yet assured because the technology being installed in sub-post offices must be proved to be not only economically viable but technologically capable.

      441
      More important, I am worried about the important signals that the new clause would give out. First, it would send a signal to sub-postmasters and mistresses who are thinking about the future of their business. The most worrying aspect of the debate is that people's businesses are being put in jeopardy by loose talk. We are failing to give people confidence in their future. Those people have a future: every Member of Parliament believes that the national network is important; we are arguing about how to secure it, not whether to do so.
      Negotiations are—or should be—taking place between the Post Office and the banks. That is where the arguments have to take place. The amendment worries me because it sends a signal to them to lay off, step back and procrastinate. When I meet the managing director of Post Office Counters Ltd. tomorrow, I shall ask him about some of the worrying rumours that I have heard. I shall ask him what negotiations he is engaged in, which banks he is talking to and what progress is being made toward the solution. Allowing people to delay for the next year or even longer will result in more sub-post offices being lost, along with confidence in the network, and that is the very thing we are trying to avoid. That is what worries me about the amendment. I can will the ends, but the means it employs strike me as counter-productive and potentially dangerous.
      We are faced with two starkly contrasting options: adopt ACT, or leave things as they are. However, there is a third way, which is the inclusion of the smart card. We take no lectures from the official Opposition, who managed to make a complete hash of the Horizon system; it took years to get it up and running, then the swipe card had to be withdrawn because it never worked properly. We know that the smart card provides a potential answer, but the question is, who will pay for it? It cannot be paid for in full by any one party; a combination of different interests will be required.
      I am worried about the outcome if we allow negotiations not to take place and we do not admit the potential of ACT and smart card technology. I am told that that technology is a killer application, which can be utilised, not only by the Benefits Agency, the Department of Social Security and local councils, but by other bodies who want people to have the opportunity to make payments through and into the postal network and sub-post offices. If we give any signal that those negotiations should not be conducted with the greatest urgency, we shall rue the day.
      Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious contribution to the debate, for which I am grateful. He appears to be saying that a saving made by the Department of Social Security should be spent, in part, on a matter that is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. Has he made any representations to the Department of Social Security, which thinks that it will save £400 million, that the money should come out of its departmental budget? Does he think that the Department would let go of the money?
      Mr. Drew: That is the nature of the debate and it is what I expect to happen if we achieve joined-up thinking and joined-up action. We still await the report of the
      442
      performance and innovation unit, which will consider in a cross-departmental context the whole issue of generating a future for sub-post offices. Now is not the time for the new clause. There is to be a lobby in a couple of weeks' time and people are worried now—they have every reason to worry, given that post offices are closing because of fears about their future viability. However, the new clause does not set out the way forward.
      We need measured, proper negotiations between the Post Office and other parties, including the Government. Only that process can produce the correct outcome whereby the network survives and benefits are paid in the appropriate form. That means giving people a choice—the Government have always said that choice is paramount. We must allow matters to take their natural course. That is why the new clause is premature and should be withdrawn.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Nicholls: The new clause is extremely well targeted. It has enabled us to concentrate on an issue that to date has not been the subject of a satisfactory answer from the Minister. The Government's position throughout is that we are engaging in a completely synthetic argument, that there is no problem and that after 2003 people will still be able to collect their benefits in cash from sub-post offices. The Minister of State wrote to me recently making exactly that point. It is one of those statements that politicians like and it is true as far as it goes, but it does not tell the whole story.
      Yes, people will be able to continue to take their benefits in cash after 2003, but only if they have a bank account. Lest anybody be in any doubt, it is worth while considering the literature that the Government have issued. It may be that fashions have changed over the past two years or so, but when I was in government I insisted on seeing the documentation that was going out in my areas of responsibility. I wanted to know whether it would give a misleading view of Government policy on the one hand and what I intended on the other. I expected to see that documentation in my red box. Those who doubt the impression that people have been given should read the literature that is being sent to the public. There is not the slightest doubt that individuals must be extremely cute to realise that at times they are being given a choice.
      The documents to which I shall refer are deliberately calculated to deceive. I know that and I recognise them. I am a lawyer, and I am paid to draft documents that are calculated to deceive. I see other lawyers on the Government Benches nodding. I am prepared to give due credit to those who drafted the documents to which I shall refer. They are people who are capable of deceit of a high order.
      Despite the fact that the Opposition Whip said that he wanted a passionate and prolix speech, I shall not try you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by delivering one. Instead, I shall refer to a document which states:
      Have your pension paid straight to your account.
      That is the opening headline. I will read not the entire document but the following paragraph. It reads:
      Wherever you are you can draw your pension from any branch of your bank, building society or the post office if you have a Girobank or National Savings bank account. You don't have to make special arrangements if you are away from home for a few weeks visiting family or friends … And it's easier to get your pension abroad.

      443
      The key point is that someone can go to any branch of his bank, building society or the Post Office if he has a Girobank or National Savings bank account.
      People are sent a form if they are applying for income support. It reads:
      You can choose where to have your income support paid. We can arrange to pay your money straight into a bank or building society account. Or we can arrange for you to get your money at the post office, either by direct payment into a Girobank or National Savings bank account or by order book. Please read these notes before you decide which option you want to choose.
      We then go into
      Payment straight into an account.
      The next form relates to those who are coming up for a retirement pension. The relevant pension reads:
      "Where do you want to be paid—you can choose.
      I said that this was deceit of a high order, and indeed it is. The form states:
      You can choose where you want your Retirement Pension to be paid. We can arrange to pay your money straight into a bank or building society account. Or we can arrange for you to get your money at the post office, either by payment straight into a GIRO account or National Savings Bank account, or in cash by order book or Payment Card.
      There are more of these documents, and they all say the same thing. They are designed to tell the individual the accounts into which the money can be paid.
      Mr. Rooker: Obviously the hon. Gentleman's quotes are correct. Is he implying that the language in the documents that he has quoted has changed since 1 May 1997?
      Mr. Nicholls: I shall move on to that.
      The Government's line used to be, "We are better than you." Now we have someone of the Minister of State's reputation—the great progenitor of the Rooker-Wise amendment during those high moral days—reduced to thinking that he can hide behind the statement, "You're no better than we are." I shall deal with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.
      When the forms refer to the various accounts into which benefits can be paid, the Girobank sounds like a nice, homely account, but these days the Girobank is a current account run by the Alliance and Leicester bank. It is a bank account that comes with a cash card and a cheque book. Will such a bank, of its own free will, as an exercise in philanthropy, extend banking facilities to elderly people who want such facilities for the sole purpose of collecting their state pension and receiving it in cash? If the Minister of State or any other Labour Member thinks that banks behave in that way, three years of government should have disabused them of their naiveté
      The documents refer lovingly and cosily to the Girobank, but that will not work. They also refer to the National Savings bank. That is very clever indeed. Although I do not pretend that I have carried out a survey, as a member of the Liberal party would, I have spoken to the constituents who brought me these forms. A number of people thought that the National Savings bank was like the old Post Office book account, which no longer exists.
      When the forms tell people that they can take their money through the National Savings bank account, that is just about correct, but only if they have an investment
      444
      account with the National Savings bank. With an investment account, people can have their money paid in in an automated way. The problem is that they must then give four weeks' notice of their intention to draw it out.
      Does anyone believe that elderly people, who are wholly dependent on state benefits and have never had a bank account in their life, will find it practical to open an investment account with the National Savings bank and then give notice in that way? It does not begin to stack up.
      The documents are deliberately calculated to make people think that they have no alternative. We need to hear from the Minister tonight either that I am wrong, that he has been in contact with the Alliance and Leicester, and that it has assured him that it will be delighted to extend free banking facilities to the range of people in question, or that I am factually wrong and that it is possible to use an investment account at the National Savings bank in that way.
      If that is the case, we need to hear about it because, as the Minister well knows, the ordinary account operated by the National Savings bank is a manual-based account. There is no way that money can be automated into it. The Minister knows that, because he has been briefed and he is an honest man. His honesty may be partial at times, but that is politics.
      The Minister knows that the accounts mentioned will not be suitable vehicles for dealing with money. What does he intend to do? Either he must say—which even he will find it hard to do with a straight face—that there is a real prospect that, out of kindness, the banking industry will make facilities available to people who are on the poverty line, or he must say that the Government will compel them to do so.
      I do not believe that, but it is not my problem—I am not a Minister any more. The Minister will have to come to the Dispatch Box and say that he will compel banks to do that, or that he believes that they will do so of their own accord. If he does not, there is a great, big lacuna in his argument.
      In the Minister's letter to me, he states that after 2003 people will be able to take their money in cash. If he says that, he will know that that is a version of events which is incompatible with the truth. That is the politest way that I can put it.
      Mr. Leigh: All the Minister has to say in answer to my hon. Friend is that people will be able to take cash at the post office, with no cost to themselves. That is the end of the argument, is it not?
      Mr. Nicholls: I am not sure that I understood my hon. Friend. I do not think that it is the end of the argument. If people are to be able to take cash, they must continue to take cash from the post office, and the present arrangements must stay, but that is not what the Government are offering. The Government are saying that people can take cash, provided that they have an account through which to do so. That simply is not correct.
      I want to make two further points, one of which has already been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). I heard the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box today do what he so often does. He says, "I can't help it. The Tories did this, and I must carry on doing it." He suggested that the arrangements proposed were what the previous

      445
      Conservative Government were in the business of doing. That is simply not true. It is not a matter of argument or of opinion. It is an absolute matter of fact. The Conservative Government intended to use swipe-card technology, but the Government abandoned that because of the job losses that it would have caused in the public sector.
      When I heard the Prime Minister today I wondered how one could accurately describe what he had said in the Chamber, but I decided that it simply could not be done; it would be unparliamentary. When I returned to my office still seething, two messages were waiting for me from sub-postmasters in my constituency saying, "Did you hear what the Prime Minister said today? It was an absolute"—as I say, I do not want to dwell on that at any great length.
      It has been suggested that the solution may be for banks to put cash points in sub-post offices. The figure of 3,000 has been mentioned, but what about the other 15,000 sub-post offices? Are we really expected to believe that banks will put cash points into other people's private premises when a business might collapse? Independent businesses can become insolvent for all sorts of reasons not related to this. For example, a sub-postmaster might die. It just is not commercially viable. The idea that that will happen is simply not true.
      The Minister, as so often, will have got the tactics right. We want to hear no more nonsense about how the present arrangements will enable people after 2003 to obtain their money in cash. Tonight he must say that he, by force if necessary, will provide such facilities, or that the banks have privately assured him that they will do so. I just do not see it happening.
      Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the date that the leaflet that he described as being deceitful was drafted and approved? If it is the same leaflet as I have in my hand, entitled, "Have your pension paid straight to your account", it was last revised in November 1996, when his party was in government.
      Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman digs a nice big hole and then throws himself into it. There is no doubt that at one stage the Conservative Government were thinking of going down this road and not using swipe-card technology, which they subsequently decided to adopt. That Government did what any decent Government would do; they listened to frail and vulnerable people who said that that would not work.
      Mr. Browne rose—
      Mr. Nicholls: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's first intervention and, if he cannot contain himself, I shall give him another shot at it.
      I was told by those who gave me the form that I have quoted from today that it is still current. If the hon. Gentleman has other forms which say something entirely different, he had better give them to his right hon. Friend the Minister now, because that would be the best piece of news that his right hon. Friend could hear this evening.
      Mr. Browne: I realise that most of us want to get home tonight, but I cannot possibly allow the hon. Gentleman to change his argument from the argument that he so
      446
      confidently and articulately set out before the House when he was the only one who had one of these leaflets. He said that the leaflet's language was deceitful and he accused the Government of producing and circulating that leaflet. He was in government when the leaflet was drafted and circulated. His Government were responsible for the deceitful language, and it has not been changed since.
      Mr. Nicholls: I must have spoken too quickly. I am sorry. The Labour party is now in government. [Interruption.] The penny has dropped. The Government are now responsible for the forms that they distribute. Let us be clear that the policy that the Government are trying to railroad through was not the Conservative Government's policy, which was to use swipe-card technology which would have dealt with the matter.
      The fact is that, throughout Britain, our constituents have been receiving letters from the Minister saying that there will be no problem and that they can continue to get their money in cash. That simply is not true. If the Minister is to retain any credibility in the matter, he will have to explain to the House tonight how he will get out of a jam which is entirely of the Government's making.
      10.30 pm
      Miss McIntosh: I want to make a brief point, which arises from the comments of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and those of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The new clause deals with choice, which several hon. Members' speeches have covered this evening.
      Consultations that I have held on the Bill with constituents in the Vale of York who receive the sort of benefit that we are discussing through CSA provisions show that they want to retain the choice that is currently available. That does not detract from the Minister's earlier comments about Labour Members' constituents, who may choose to change to automated credit transfer payments in a good-will gesture to the Government to whom they owe their allegiance.
      A third of constituents in the Vale of York choose not to have a bank account. They have never had a bank account and they do not wish to have one. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) makes a point about the 40 per cent. of my constituents who fall into a different category and choose to have a bank account. However, that choice has been taken from them. The speed with which bank branches have closed in the past two and a half years is disgraceful. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take that up with the usual channels from a non-sedentary position. He is in a privileged position if he wishes to do that.
      It is no laughing matter, and it causes anxiety to those who live in villages in the Vale of York, especially people who live in towns such as Bedale and Easingwold, where there is not just one bank but a choice of banks. That choice may disappear.
      Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend's constituents, like mine, have probably received a form on retirement pensions called BR1, which was revised in June 1999 and gave

      447
      them the impression that they had to accept that their money would be paid into an account through automated credit transfer.
      Miss McIntosh: That is a helpful comment, which is worth placing on record. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making it.
      I want to respond to the comments of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead by saying that most Opposition Members have been in regular contact with our sub-post offices in the past two and a half years. We have nothing to fear from a mass lobby, which we would welcome.
      Mr. Field: I shall learn the lesson about walking around in hobnailed boots from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman who usually walks around the Chamber so gently. I suggested that it was the views not of Opposition Members but of Labour Members that were important tonight.
      Miss McIntosh: I could not agree more. The right hon. Gentleman's comments this evening have been courageous. I simply want to underline the fact that the Minister should take account of the fact that consultations have taken place and that if the Government had been more mindful of people's anxieties, they would not face a mass lobby.
      I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Northavon about the future of the post office network, but I want simply to place on record that the majority of my constituents do not wish to move to automated credit transfer as the only way in which they can receive benefit. They would like to retain the current arrangements, whether they are with a bank in a market town or with remaining sub-post offices.
      Mr. Rooker: I apologise for the delay in rising; I thought that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) wanted to contribute and I did not want to deprive anyone of the opportunity to speak.
      I shall do my best to answer the debate. There will be some shortcomings in my response, and I shall not be able to answer all the points because not all the decisions have been made. I have to be as open as possible.
      Mr. Pickles: Tell us now.
      Mr. Rooker: No, that is not possible. It does not work like that.
      I want to get a couple of points on the record. I gave the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) the figure of 20 people a week changing to automated credit transfer. That was referred to, in her graceful way, by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), when she said that the change might be a good-will gesture to Labour Members. How did I get that figure? The reality is that every week, in every one of our constituencies, 20 people change to ACT. [Interruption.] There are not 600,000 members of the Labour party.
      Mr. Leigh: People choose to make that change. So what?
      Mr. Rooker: That is my point. People make that choice voluntarily, either as new beneficiaries of child support
      448
      after the birth of a child or as new pensioners. Others swap from current weekly payment, for whatever reason. There is a move to ACT, on a pretty vast scale, but it is unplanned and unmanaged.
      I followed the argument of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). I say to him honestly and sincerely that, when I asked my question, I thought that he was about to assert that he had discovered a change in the language or the terminology. I thought that I would have to answer an allegation, but he did not make one. I know that the language has not changed since May 1997.
      We had difficulty last year over child benefit, which has always been paid every four weeks. Exceptions allow it to be paid weekly, but it was thought that too many people were receiving it on those terms instead of returning to a four-weekly payment after their need changed. I genuinely was not making a cheap point against the hon. Gentleman, his Government or his former ministerial role. However, he laboured the point about the language in the leaflets and the forms, and I thought that he was about to make an assertion.
      Mr. Nicholls: My point is that the policy has changed and the language has not. The Minister has been writing letters implying that people will be able to get their benefits in cash from post offices after 2003. There is nothing wrong with writing letters, but people will be able to get their benefits in cash only if they have a bank account. It is unrealistic to expect that, on the evidence, unless the Government or the banks take action to make them open accounts. That is the simple point.
      Mr. Rooker: I promise to address that important matter.
      I have prepared statements to make because I want to get some remarks on the record. The hon. Member for Teignbridge laboured the point on the shortcomings of national savings accounts, although I accept everything that he said. Some of the manual books are ridiculous—they are from the ration book era—and the technology has not caught up. However, he did not mention the Co-op bank for a start. It does not have many branches, but it has hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of customers who operate successfully. I declare an interest. After Black Wednesday, when my bank speculated with the currency, I moved to the Co-op bank. I left after 33 years and my bank was so concerned about customers withdrawing standing orders and direct debits—I did all that myself—that it never once said, "By the way, it looks as though you have left us after 33 years. Have we done anything to upset you?" I was just a cog in the wheel. Lloyds bank did not give a tinker's cuss about the loss of a customer.
      Mr. Pickles: It does now.
      Mr. Rooker: That is right, but here is the other side of that coin, as I want to strike a balance and be fair. The hon. Member for Teignbridge laboured the point about national savings, but customers of Lloyds TSB and the Co-op can cash cheques and have full access at the post office. That is an important point to put on the record.
      Mr. Leigh: This is a key question for pensioners. After 2003, will pensioners be able to go to their post office and draw their pension without facing bank charges?
      Mr. Rooker: I shall come to that later, but I do not want to avoid answering the question. That is our

      449
      intention—which is as near to a yes as could be provided. We intend that pensioners will be able to obtain their cash at post offices without incurring charges. We do not want the banks to take money out of the pensions of people who are a bit overdrawn, for instance.
      The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said that only one in 10 pensioners had opted for ACT. In fact, one in three new pensioners opts for it. According to figures issued in November last year, 35 per cent. of the Department's customers were paid by that method, 50 per cent. of new retirement pensioners chose it, and 54 per cent. of new child benefit customers chose it. I do not have all the figures with me, but I know that when I check I shall be able to confirm that 10 per cent. of income support recipients chose it.
      I believe that income support is the latest benefit that can be claimed through ACT. When I dealt with a member of my family's circumstances back in the early 1990s, I had to go to the post office to claim the pension; it could not be paid into the bank, because income support was involved. In the last three or four years, however, I have dealt with the affairs of a friend whose income support was paid into the bank. Anyway, one in 10 income support recipients opts for ACT.
      The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said that people did not realise that they had a choice. If he can find such a pensioner, I shall certainly acknowledge that he or she was misled, although pensioners can of course return to a weekly arrangement. I find it unbelievable that someone—probably confused, perhaps without much of a cash flow, perhaps without many savings, perhaps without two halfpennies to rub together—would say, "I will wait four weeks to have my pension in the bank, although I could claim it weekly at the post office".
      Mr. Peter Bradley: Is not one of the reasons for the number of confused people—especially pensioners and other vulnerable individuals, and especially in the south-west—the fact that both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have pursued a scurrilous scaremongering campaign in regard to the proposals for the Post Office? Will my right hon. Friend join me in asking them to support the Government's effort to convey the correct information to pensioners, so that they can feel secure about their future?
      Mr. Rooker: The issue of choice is important. We recently provided all sub-postmasters with two leaflets explaining the system of payments of benefits and pensions, entitled "You Have A Choice", in letters an inch high—I am old-fashioned; I was brought up on "tenths of a thou" in the factories where I worked. Some sub-postmasters, however, refuse to display the leaflets that explain that pensions can be paid through the bank or by them, across the counter. We must have a mature and adult debate about this, because there is a serious issue at stake, affecting both the future of the post office network and the choice that people have.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) may remember, as I do, the last big rally and lobby of the House by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, in about 1981 in Westminster Hall. Most hon. Members who are present now probably were
      450
      not here then. I was an Opposition Front Bencher at the time. There may have been a few such rallies since, but the problems that were raised then—
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: You were fomenting them.
      Mr. Rooker: No, I was not!
      My noble Friend Lord Orme and I were in Westminster Hall. I had never experienced a lobby or rally like it. I can honestly say that I have not experienced one like it since, so I am well aware of the—
      Mr. Kirkwood: Newcastle will not be far enough away.
      Mr. Rooker: My diary had me on ministerial business in Newcastle on 12 April, but I have insisted on being at the rally in London. I will have my own constituents coming to see me on that day. It is important to be in London.
      10.45 pm
      There is an important issue to be dealt with, which has been touched on by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We must take it on board.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Rooker: I shall make a little progress and then I should be happy to give way.
      New clause 26 is designed to retain people's current choice as to method of payment—it applies to the year after, really, irrespective of circumstances. We have announced that automatic credit transfer will be the norm for paying benefits from 2003. I cannot say in March 2000 what the rules and procedures will be. It is not possible. It will probably take the best part of the rest of this year before the negotiations are completed—they may go a little into next year—between the Benefits Agency and the Post Office, and between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Post Office.
      There is much detail to go into, some of which I have alluded to. For example, we pay 1 million emergency payments a year. Emergency payments are emergency payments; the cash is needed. It may not be possible for ACT to be even a runner for such payments. That must be taken account of.
      Some people will never be able to have, or to run, a bank account. The figure is a lot smaller than the percentage of people who do not have a bank account now, but some people are not allowed by law to operate a bank account. Clearly, we must take all that into account before we make those changes.
      Mr. Pickles: Could the right hon. Gentleman help us? He says that he is in negotiation on this issue. Given that it is cross-departmental, is he doing the negotiation, or is the Department for Education and Employment doing it?
      Mr. Rooker: No. The Department of Trade and Industry is the sponsoring Department for the Post Office. It is leading on the Horizon project. A departmental issue

      451
      is at stake, but we want some joined-up government, because it is obviously cross-departmental, as the hon. Gentleman implied.
      The transfer to ACT is planned to begin in 2003 and to be completed by 2005. However, those who wish to continue to collect their cash at post offices will still be able to do so before and after the change in 2003.
      Mr. Nicholls: Whether or not they have a bank account of their own?
      Mr. Rooker: I emphasise: those who wish to collect their cash at post offices will still be able to do so before and after the change in 2003. At present, until the cash in the post office crosses the counter, it is, in effect, the Secretary of State's cash. With ACT, the bank has the cash the minute that it is transferred to the person's account, so it is their cash.
      Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Taxpayers' cash.
      Mr. Rooker: No. It is legal terminology. The money that would be accessed via a post office is already the cash—
      Mrs. Lait: Of taxpayers.
      Mr. Rooker: No. It is already the cash of the beneficiary—it is already in the beneficiary's account. It is no longer in the Secretary of State's account, it is no longer in the Benefits Agency and it does not belong to the Post Office. The cash is already in the account of the payee: the pensioner, the child benefit recipient, the mother. That is the point.I am making. It will be the payee's cash. At present, the cash at the post office remains the Benefits Agency's cash until it is transferred.
      Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister is trying to be helpful and I am sure that the House is grateful for that. In my understanding, the key piece of law that underpins all this—never mind the leaflets, the wording, the jargon and whether leaflets are being displayed—is the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987; I think that it is regulation 21, from memory. That makes payment by ACT a consensual act. The claimant has to opt in and the Secretary of State has to comply. The moment that the Government repeal that regulation without guaranteeing the sub-post office network an alternative stream of income, they will kill off the sub-post offices. The Minister can say that there will be arrangements and I understand that there will be negotiations. I hope that he will listen carefully to the representations that are being made, but he must be certain that the repeal of that legislation will potentially sound the death knell of the post office network.
      Mr. Rooker: As the hon. Gentleman says, we must be very careful about how we implement the changes. We have to be sure that the system will work and that people will be able to get the money to which they have a right and which the House instructs the Government to pay. We are unable to make proposals for changing primary legislation and regulations because we do not have answers to all the questions. We need those answers before the changeover.
      Mr. Nicholls: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Rooker: Let me make some progress before I give way again.
      452
      Let me remind hon. Members why the changes are necessary. The current system belongs to the days of ration books. The technology has hardly changed at all. The Department has to look at the best use of taxpayers' money. We spend £2 billion a week—or £100 billion a year—on issuing benefits. The running costs amount to some £3.5 billion a year. An ACT costs 1p in transaction costs compared with 49p for an order book foil and 79p per giro cashed. The overall costs to the Department are 1p per ACT, 54p for an order book transaction and £1.36 for a giro. Those costs include the paperwork, the production and the printing. The transaction costs vary slightly, but giros are more costly. We have to take that big jump into consideration. In addition, we estimate—we can only estimate—that we lose about £150 million a year in fraud such as counterfeiting and forgeries. I am not saying that there is not, and will not be, any fraud in ACT; it is fraud of a different nature. Obviously, we would have to adjust the anti-fraud programme to make sure that we do not lose what we have gained.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Are not the pensioners who want to receive their cash over the post office counter the same people who have contributed over the years to the creation of my right hon. Friend's Department? Might they not find his arguments about the cost of each transfer singularly unconvincing when they are faced with the difficulty of either having to run bank accounts that they are unable to maintain or being required to use an artificial machine to obtain their cash?
      Mr. Rooker: I could argue that all machines are artificial. I was simply explaining the costs to the Department. We do not know what sub-postmasters receive; that is commercially confidential information between themselves and the Post Office. We pay an annual fee to Post Office Counters of some £400 million to £500 million. How it pays sub-postmasters is a matter for the Post Office.
      What is happening now is unplanned and unmanaged. More people are choosing to use the banking system in an unplanned and unmanaged way.
      When I was at that rally, in 1981, there were 22,000 sub-post offices. That figure stuck in my mind. We have fewer than that number now—but more than 18,000—and we have heard the figures on the losses. They are all independent private sector businesses. As I understand it, they are all also on a three-month contract. They could all disappear. The Government do not run them or own them. They are operated by individual business people, doing a first-class job. Some of them are more dependent than others on what they receive for benefits transactions.
      If nothing happens—if no action is taken at central level by the Government and by the Post Office headquarters, and if the current changes continue—in a few years, we could lose the post office network. That change would have been unplanned and unmanaged, and every hon. Member would ask, "How on earth did it happen? Why didn't we do something about it?" The very purpose of our change is to provide planning and management. We want a transfer to ACT that will in turn protect the post office network. The Government are determined to help maintain a post office network.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned work being done across government. The transfer is not being dealt with or led by the Department

      453
      of Social Security or by the Department of Trade and Industry. As was mentioned earlier in the debate, the Prime Minister asked the performance and innovation unit to do work on the post office network. It has been doing that work since October 1999, and it will report fairly soon. That important work is being chaired by an independent Minister who has no role at either the DTI or the DSS. We should take that important fact on board.
      The Government want to retain a post office network, which is crucial in rural areas. I take second place to no one in making the important point about the contribution of the rural post office in villages that have been deserted by the banks. The network is crucial. A post office may not always be in the right location to ensure its economic viability, but that is a consequence of the current lack of planning. We certainly want to be able to provide that planning.
      We have to have a more modern system and to bring both the Post Office and the benefits system into the 21st century. They are certainly not there yet. The way in which we pay benefits, with orders books and old-fashioned giros, and the way in which the Post Office has been operating have not been consistent with a modern service delivery programme. There is no question about that. However, what we do not want to do is to lose post offices by accident—by lack of management and lack of foresight.
      There will be no quick or easy fix, but we are attempting, first, to modernise the benefit service, which is important; secondly, to save public funds in administering that service, which is crucial—if we cannot, the Public Accounts Select Committee and other people will want to know why we are not using the best available economic processes; and, thirdly—but equally important—to maintain a viable post office network in rural areas and in urban areas. That is not to say that there will not be change. There will have to be change if the post office network is to survive. That is the reality of this debate.
      I therefore hope that hon. Members will think twice before they consider pressing the new clause to a vote.
      Mr. Webb: We have had quite an extraordinary response to the debate from the Minister. I should like very briefly to consider the logic, such as it was, of his argument.
      The Minister said that there is a drift—or something faster than a drift—towards ACT. He said—I think that the record will show this—that, for the sake of the Post Office, the Government want to hasten ACT and make it compulsory. That statement will cause hollow laughter in sub-post offices across the land. They will simply not believe that Ministers are telling them that forced ACT is for their own good. I think that the record will show that the Minister said something very similar to that.
      The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who has taken a serious interest in the issue, raised a key point about the savings that the DSS will make from the change. It is good to see the Secretary of State for Social Security, in a rare lapse, in the Chamber while I am speaking. I would be happy to give way to the Secretary of State if he wanted to offer a share of the £400 million savings to be made from ACT to the DTI to keep post offices open.
      454
      If he could guarantee that that money would not just go to the Department, we would feel more comfortable. However, that is not what is planned.
      11 pm
      If ACT is happening already out of choice, why is there a need to force the pace? If it is causing damage to post offices—which it obviously is—why speed it up? Why not let it go on as people choose, because choice is the key? If we let it go slowly, that gives the post offices more time, as the hon. Member for Stroud said. Stopping forcing people, but letting the drift happen, gives the post offices more time to adjust.
      I take seriously the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who will chair an all-party group on sub-post offices. It is critical that we build up an all-party consensus on the issue. Those who suggest that this is scaremongering in the south-west ought to open their eyes to the closures of post offices. Our constituents do not ask why we are making all this fuss; they say that their post offices are being threatened, and they ask what we are going to do about it.
      Mr. Peter Bradley: In typical Liberal fashion, the hon. Gentleman is conflating two separate issues; one is the future of post offices—which is not the subject of the debate this evening—and the other is how pensioners and other benefit claimants will receive their payments in future. Will he confirm my understanding that, in future, according to the new arrangements, pensioners will not have to open bank accounts; that those who do receive ACT through their bank accounts will not incur additional bank charges; and that pensioners who do not choose to receive their benefits by ACT will still be able to go to the post office and draw their pensions in cash over the counter? Those are the facts as the Minister has stated them. Does the hon. Gentleman accept them or not?
      Mr. Webb: No, I do not accept that. A post office is needed for people to be able to get the cash from. The point is that the switch to ACT is hastening the closure of post offices. It is no good having the option of going to a post office if the nearest one has closed and one has to go miles to another. It is not a worthwhile choice if the post office network has been undermined. That is the consequence of the Government's policy.
      There are people who want to choose ACT, and that is fine; there are people who do not want anything to do with bank accounts and will still go to the post office; and there are people in the middle—they are critical to the survival of post offices—who do not care very much but, if they are forced to go to ACT, will tend more and more to get their money from a bank, and that will kill the post offices. That is what we are trying to stop with the new clause.
      Mr. Field: Although there is clearly a dispute on what the Minister did or did not say—even on this side of the House—was not the crucial thing that my right hon. Friend said that the key date is 2003? If so, is it not worth thinking about how we could most effectively use our votes?
      Mr. Webb: The right hon. Gentleman is chairing an all-party group on sub-post offices, and the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will be a leading light in that campaign.
      Mr. Martlew: That will be a first.
      Mr. Webb: I say to the hon. Gentleman that, because we are not trying to make party politics out of this, and

      455
      because we want to bring all parties on board for the sake of post offices, we will not force him into the Lobby to commit himself to force people to go to ACT. We want to give time for all-party work to save the post offices. We hope that the other place will come up with something that will unite all parties and allow us to say that we together saved the post offices.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion, and clause, by leave withdrawn.

    Clause 57

      Loss OF BENEFIT FOR BREACH OF COMMUNITY ORDER
      Angela Eagle: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 61, line 6, leave out—
      'Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1991'
      and insert—
      'the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 27.
      Angela Eagle: These amendments make two technical changes to clause 57. They introduce no policy changes but reflect the consolidation of existing legislation, and I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Alan Simpson: I am grateful to be able to address the House briefly on this matter. I support the amendments, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address some of the loopholes and contradictions that remain in clause 57 and its associated clauses.
      I declare a personal interest in this matter. More years ago than I care to remember, I was responsible for setting up the pilot schemes for non-custodial treatment of offenders. In the context of the aims of that programme and of the operation of community services in the interim, I want to point out some of the gaps that remain in the amended clause that will progress for consideration in another place.
      By way of background, let me say that one of the elements of the community service by offenders scheme that the House should recognise is that it was introduced to pursue entirely laudable aims. We wanted to find positive alternatives to incarceration, and to find ways of reducing the cost to the public purse—although at that time we did not anticipate a time when it would cost some £2 billion a year to keep people in prison. That amounts to about £30,000 per person, per year.
      However, we also wanted to study notions of social reparation. The clauses that I am interested in address the question of obligation in the reparation process. The scheme that I set up also had the objective of trying to break the cycles of criminality.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman may be somewhat mistaken about the scope of the amendments. His remarks seem to be going rather wide of the minor changes that the amendments entail. They would have been more suited to a general debate on
      456
      the clause, or to a debate on new clause 29, had that been selected. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to the very specific amendment before the House.
      Mr. Simpson: I checked with the Clerks a little earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make sure that it would be legitimate to ask the Minister to address the loopholes that remain and that ought to be considered when the Bill moves on to another place. I was advised that this was the most appropriate slot for drawing the Minister's attention to those loopholes.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may know that I did not make up the guidance that I gave him out of my own head. The advice that I am giving him is as up-to-date as it can possible be. Therefore, I am not sure that this is the opportunity that he thought that it might be.
      Mr. Simpson: I am not entirely clear how to proceed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that you will give me guidance if I stray further than is legitimate.
      My point has to do with the pursuit of new policies on constraint and obligation. Such policies are usually evidence based, and that is quite right. I am worried that we have yet to show that the existing system does not work, and that the amendments under discussion will close the loopholes that remain. My concern about this is that we will be left with a clause that does not make it desirable, workable or necessarily even legal. I hope that the Minister will address the specifics of three points that I hope can still be incorporated into that framework when it comes back to this House.
      First, can the Minister demonstrate and spell out how the clauses, as amended, will be consistent with the European convention on human rights, particularly article 6 on fair trials, article 7 on no punishments without law and article 14 on non-discrimination? It appears that article 7 is breached on the basis—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman some run, and I am sorry if he feels that he may have been misled by previous advice. The fact is that this is the only amendment to clause 57 that we have before us. The hon. Gentleman may have gained the impression that, because it was the only amendment, it would be the convenient amendment to which to relate his remarks. I am afraid that he is going far too wide, as he is talking about the clause as a whole and even beyond the clause. I really cannot permit this to go on. He has made one point and, if the Minister is disposed to comment on it, he will have to be content with that.
      Angela Eagle: This is a very narrow technical amendment, as my hon. Friend has pointed out. I do not want to go out of order by responding in detail to the issues that he has raised. However, I refer him to Hansard. We had long and detailed debates about these matters in Committee, and it is in Hansard that he will find his answers.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 27, in page 61, line 14, at end insert—
      '( ) In relation to any time before the coming into force of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the reference to that Act in subsection (9) shall be taken to be a reference to Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.'.—[Angela Eagle.]

    Schedule 7

      HOUSING BENEFIT AND COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT: REVISIONS AND APPEALS
      Amendment proposed: No. 15, in page 116, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).—[Angela Eagle.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 16.
      Amendment No. 80, in page 116, line 24, at end insert—
      '2A. The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide that any child support maintenance received by a parent with care shall be disregarded in calculating her (or her partner's) entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 17 to 25, 13 and 14.
      Amendment No. 78, in clause 66, page 68, line 5, at end insert—
      '(2) Section 175 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 shall be amended in accordance with Schedule (Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996).'.
      New schedule 1—'(Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996)—
      In the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 after section 175(10), there shall be inserted—
      "(11) The Secretary of State shall by order amend the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996 in accordance with the following provisions—

      (a) In regulation 12A of the principal Regulations (requirement to refer to rent officers) leave out paragraph (1B);

      (b) In regulation 11 of the principal Regulations (maximum rent) leave out paragraph (3A).".'.

      Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for moving the amendment formally so that we can have a debate in some detail on these important matters.
      The amendments cover two separate issues. Amendment No. 80 deals with an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) and I raised in Committee, and I do not intend to go into great detail about it. However, I intend to spend some time debating amendment No. 78 and new schedule 1 which raise another matter that I believe needs urgent attention, and that I wish to deal with first.
      The purpose of the amendment and the new schedule is to abolish the single room rent restriction on housing benefit payable to single people under 25 in private rented accommodation. The restriction was introduced in the House in 1996 by the previous Government. When they consulted about their proposed draft regulations, the Social Security Advisory Committee said:
      We do not agree with the principle of making rates of benefit which distinguish those age 25 or over and those under 25. We consider that the consequences of the proposals could well be that some people dependent on benefits will face a choice between homelessness and living in accommodation of an unacceptably poor standard.
      The Minister will be aware of the widespread support among organisations with experience of dealing with homelessness and housing for the repeal of that regulation and the legislation that underpins it. Organisations such as Shelter, Centrepoint, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Local Government Association, NACAB—the
      458
      National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—and many others recently wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging him to do that.
      11.15 pm
      There is growing evidence from the Government and other bodies that increased hardship is being caused by the single room rent restrictions. I am sure that Ministers are aware that there is a wealth of research on the matter. The Government's research, published in April 1999, examined several case studies. It considered a west-country city, a seaside town, a northern city, an inner and an outer-London borough and a market town, without giving their names.
      The findings were disturbing. There were widespread shortfalls between housing benefit and rents. Indeed, 90 per cent. of the survey respondents reported such shortfalls—ranging from £10 to more than £20. The report concluded that one in five of those people owed more than £500 in back rent. Two thirds of them did not know of the existence of exceptional hardship payments.
      In a written answer of 20 March, I was told that 62 per cent. of the Government's contribution of £20 million towards exceptional hardship payments in 1998–99—£12.51 million—had not been spent. People are not claiming that money; they do not know about it. That is hardly surprising because even the Government's research acknowledged that there was inadequate information and a lack of consistent practice between housing benefit offices in different local authorities.
      However, it is not only Government research that gives cause for concern. Research by Shelter and Centrepoint found that there was a lack of accommodation matching the single room rent definition. Many landlords refused to let accommodation to young people—a fact picked up by the Government's research. Many people feel trapped in expensive accommodation from which they cannot afford to move. There is no affordable or cheap accommodation in their locality, which creates great difficulty for them.
      When the Conservative Government introduced the single room rent restrictions in 1996, the Labour Opposition rightly opposed them and secured debates on the matter. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who was then an Opposition Social Security spokesman, moved the motion initiating the debate. At that time, the Opposition were very much in new Labour mode and were being exceedingly prudent as to their spending commitments before a general election.
      The hon. Gentleman said:
      Under these proposals, many young people will suffer the double disadvantage of a cut in their housing benefit, leaving potentially large rent payments to be made up out of an already reduced income support level … Again, we share that view. We share the concern that the response of landlords is likely to be to withdraw from providing accommodation for young people.
      The hon. Gentleman made a point that is entirely germane to this debate when he stated:
      We believe that the draconian regulations to restrict housing benefit to single people under 25 further constitutes a form of age discrimination within the means-tested benefits system, and is likely to force young people into unsuitable housing and lead to an increase in youth homelessness.—[Official Report, 5 June 1996; Vol. 278, c. 619-23.]
      The hon. Gentleman was right, as were the present Prime Minister, Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister and the many other Labour Members who voted against

      459
      the regulations. I hope that they will do the same thing tonight. It is time that the regulations were removed from the statute book and replaced by a rent and housing benefit support system that offered equality of treatment for everyone.
      The matter was dealt with in some detail after the election. I pay tribute to the Government for taking the opportunity in June 1997, when given the chance to extend the scope, to revoke the regulations that had been introduced by the Conservatives. Although I fully acknowledge that, as we did at the time, the Government have been reviewing and considering the matter for three years. Three years is a long time, especially for people who have been clocking up rent arrears and living in unsatisfactory accommodation. That is why we ask the Government to move on the matter—if not through the amendment, through other means. We feel strongly that they should take action now.
      Amendment No. 80 proposes that maintenance should be disregarded for the purposes of calculating housing and council tax benefits. That is an entirely separate matter, which takes us back to the debate on the Child Support Agency and the simplified formula. Parents with care receiving tax credits have all their maintenance payments disregarded. However, the disregard on housing and council tax benefits remains at £15. That means that up to 85 per cent. of any maintenance over £15 is lost in the extra rent and council tax that the parent with care must pay. A parent getting £30 a week, for example, keeps just £17.25 of that. The value of a more generous tax credit disregard is therefore eroded, and the Government fall short of their goal on child poverty.
      We propose, with the support of the Child Poverty Action Group, that maintenance should be completely ignored for the purposes of housing and council tax benefits. That would better align practice with the goals that the Government have set.
      Amendment No. 78 and new schedule 1 give hon. Members the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that they wish to see the end of such a pernicious set of regulations, which penalise the under-25s and cause many to suffer homelessness or to find themselves in inferior, inadequate accommodation. It is time, after three years, that the review ended and the action began.
      Angela Eagle: Amendment No. 78 and new schedule I would remove the restriction on the amount of rent that can be used to calculate housing benefit for most single young people under the age of 25 living in the private rented sector. As has been said, the restriction was implemented by the previous Government in October 1996 and we have pledged to review it in the context of our wider housing benefit agenda. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for having the grace to thank us for not extending that rent restriction to those under the age of 60, as would have happened under the Conservatives.
      We understand the concerns raised about the restriction and are looking very carefully at the effects of it as part of our welfare reform agenda. We shall issue our Green Paper on housing soon; all interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on it. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the issue will be addressed in the Green Paper.
      Amendment No. 80 would mean that parents with care would have any maintenance disregarded when entitlement to housing and council tax benefits is calculated. Currently, £15 of any maintenance is ignored for the purposes of those benefits.
      460
      Concern about the impact of specific elements of the housing benefit system, which is expressed through both amendments, is understandable. Indeed, many such impacts must be considered—all of which we have been considering, in respect of and in parallel with housing policy. It is not wise merely to consider housing benefit issues in isolation from housing policy. We shall be publishing the Green Paper in due course following such consideration.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister be more specific about when the Green Paper will be published and in exactly which terms it will assess the questions of housing benefit, applicability and administration?
      Angela Eagle: I understand my hon. Friend's impatience and I hope that we shall be able to reward as quickly as possible any patience that he may show between now and the publication date. The Green Paper will be published soon. It will have a tremendous sweep and he should be reasonably satisfied with its scope when it appears.
      Mr. Pickles: Surely the Minister can be a little more forthcoming. The Government have suggested that the Green Paper will not be produced until July, so why does she not say so?
      Angela Eagle: Because that would not be accurate. The Green Paper will be published soon—I have to stick to that mantra. I ask the House to be patient, because there is a serious debate to be had on housing policy and housing benefit. That debate will include—my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will be pleased to learn—discussion of its administration. That is a vital part of the benefit, as we all realise from the constituents who visit us. We will have a much fuller debate on these issues once the Green Paper is published, and that will be soon.
      Amendments Nos. 17 to 25 make minor changes to clause 65, which provides for funding of the new discretionary housing scheme and the housing benefit and council tax benefit revisions and appeals that appear in schedule 7. The amendments do not introduce any policy changes. They iron out the slightly deficient technical wording. They remove certain duplicate or otherwise unnecessary measures and make other minor or technical changes. I commend them to the House.
      In the light of the imminent Green Paper, which will appear soon, I ask Liberal Democrat Members to withdraw their amendments.
      Mr. Burstow: We have heard "soon", and "in due course"—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to seek the leave of the House.
      Mr. Burstow: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I reply? I am grateful to you and to the House.
      We have heard the Minister say soon, in due course and imminent. They are not the same; they mean many different things. If she had said that the Green Paper would be

      461
      published in a matter of days or weeks, we might have been persuaded. However, after three years of review, the offer of its being published soon is not adequate.
      A Green Paper leads to a White Paper and a White Paper will lead to legislation after a general election. Four or five years of this Parliament without sorting the matter out is not acceptable. We wish to press amendment No. 78 to a vote. We believe that the House should have the opportunity to divide on it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 16, in page 116, line 14, leave out "or (b)".
      No. 17, in page 121, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
      No. 18, in page 121, line 46, at end insert—
      '( ) In sub-paragraph (2)(d) the reference to a different case—

      (a) includes a reference to a case involving a different relevant authority; but

      (b) does not include a reference to a case relating to a different benefit unless the different benefit is housing benefit or council tax benefit.'.

      No. 19, in page 122, line 37, leave out from court" to end of line 39.
      No. 20, in page 123, line 20, at end insert—
      '( ) In sub-paragraph (1)(b) the reference to another case—

      (a) includes a reference to a case involving a decision made, or falling to be made, by a different relevant authority; but

      (b) does not include a reference to a case relating to another benefit unless the other benefit is housing benefit or council tax benefit.'.

      No. 21, in page 123, line 27, leave out from "court" to end of line 29.
      No. 22, in page 124, line 18, after "Commissioner;" insert—
      '( ) the reference in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to a different case—

      (i) includes a reference to a case involving a different relevant authority; but

      (ii) does not include a reference to a case relating to a different benefit unless the different benefit is housing benefit or council tax benefit;'.

      No. 23, in page 126, line 40, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
      No. 24, in page 126, line 46, leave out "that" and insert "the Administration".
      No. 25, in page 127, line 41, at end insert—
      '( ) For the purposes of this Schedule any decision that is made or falls to be made—

      (a) by a person authorised to carry out any function of a relevant authority relating to housing benefit or council tax benefit, or

      (b) by a person providing services relating to housing benefit or council tax benefit directly or indirectly to a relevant authority,

      shall be treated as a decision of the relevant authority on whose behalf the function is carried out or, as the case may be, to whom those services are provided.'.—[Angela Eagle.]

    Clause 65

      GRANTS TOWARDS COSTS OF DISCRETIONARY HOUSING PAYMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 13, in page 67, line 16, after "discretionary" insert "housing".
      No. 14, in page 67, line 33, leave out from "64" to end of line 34.—[Angela Eagle.]

    Clause 66

      RECOVERY OF HOUSING BENEFIT
      Amendment proposed: No. 78, in page 68, line 5, at end insert—
      '(2) Section 175 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 shall be amended in accordance with Schedule (Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996).'.—[Mr. Burstow.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 260.

      Division No. 132]

      [11.28 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

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

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Baker, Norman

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ballard, Jackie

      Livsey, Richard

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Brake, Tom

      Moore, Michael

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Rendel, David

      Burnett, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Burstow, Paul

      Sanders, Adrian

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

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

      Stunell, Andrew

      Chidgey, David

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Cotter, Brian

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Tyler, Paul

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Webb, Steve

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mr. Don Foster and

      Keetch, Paul

      Mr. Andrew George.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Browne, Desmond

      Allen, Graham

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Burden, Richard

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Burgon, Colin

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Austin, John

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Banks, Tony

      Cann, Jamie

      Barnes, Harry

      Caplin, Ivor

      Barron, Kevin

      Casale, Roger

      Bayley, Hugh

      Caton, Martin

      Beard, Nigel

      Cawsey, Ian

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Chaytor, David

      Beggs, Roy

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Benton, Joe

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Berry, Roger

      Clelland, David

      Betts, Clive

      Clwyd, Ann

      Blackman, Liz

      Coaker, Vernon

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cohen, Harry

      Borrow, David

      Coleman, Iain

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Colman, Tony

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Corbett, Robin

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      463

      Corston, Jean

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Cousins, Jim

      Laxton, Bob

      Crausby, David

      Lepper, David

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Levitt, Tom

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Linton, Martin

      Darvill, Keith

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Love, Andrew

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McAvoy, Thomas

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

      McCabe, Steve

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Dawson, Hilton

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      McDonnell, John

      Dismore, Andrew

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Donohoe, Brian H

      McIsaac, Shona

      Doran, Frank

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Drew, David

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McNulty, Tony

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McWalter, Tony

      Ennis, Jeff

      McWilliam, John

      Etherington, Bill

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Reid, Rt Hon Frank

      Mallaber, Judy

      Flint, Caroline

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Flynn, Paul

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Martlew, Eric

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Meale, Alan

      Foulkes, George

      Miller, Andrew

      Fyfe, Maria

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Motley, Elliot

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mountford, Kali

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Mullin, Chris

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Goggins, Paul

      Norris, Dan

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Grogan, John

      Pearson, Ian

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Pendry, Tom

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Hanson, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Plaskitt, James

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Pollard, Kerry

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Pond, Chris

      Heppell, John

      Pope, Greg

      Hill, Keith

      Pound, Stephen

      Hinchliffe, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hope, Phil

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Rapson, Syd

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Raynsford, Nick

      Hurst, Alan

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Hutton, John

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Illsley, Eric

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jamieson, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Jenkins, Brian

      Roy, Frank

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Ruane, Chris

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Sawford, Phil

      Khabra, Piara S

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Shaw, Jonathan

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      464

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Todd, Mark

      Singh, Marsha

      Touhig, Don

      Skinner, Dennis

      Trickett, Jon

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Truswell, Paul

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Tynan, Bill

      Snape, Peter

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Soley, Clive

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wareing, Robert N

      Spellar, John

      Watts, David

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      White, Brian

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stevenson, George

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Winnick, David

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wood, Mike

      Stringer, Graham

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stuart Ms Gisela

      Woolas, Phil

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wray, James

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]
      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

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

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT (SCOTLAND)
    That the draft Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 (Transfer of NAO Staff etc.) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
    INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
    That the draft Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
    AUDIT COMMISSION
    That the Code of Audit Practice for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales. which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    That the draft Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 60) on 1999–2000 Special Grant for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (HC 330), which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Question agreed to.

  PETITIONS

    Housing (Hampshire)
    11.40 pm
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is my privilege to present a petition in the name of my constituent, Mrs. Pamela Combes, which has been signed by some 750 of my constituents. The petitioners are concerned about proposals for new housing in Hampshire, equivalent to the building of a settlement the size of Southampton. They believe that that will devastate vast tracts of countryside, overwhelm the health, leisure and education services, cause massive congestion and overwhelm the life of rural communities.
    The petition states:
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House ask the Deputy Prime Minister to totally reject the advisory panel's proposals to build 169,000 new houses in Hampshire.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Farmers (Midlands)
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: It is my privilege to present a petition to the House that was given me yesterday at a crisis rally of Derbyshire farmers and other farmers from the midlands, on the eve of the summit that the Prime Minister is to hold tomorrow.
  466
  The petition states that farmers in the midlands
  wish to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the plight of farmers.
  They call upon the House to support positive action to provide the viable production of true British food and ensure the maintenance of the British countryside.
  The petition is signed by some 2,400 people, and is a sign of the growing concern about the Government's treatment of the countryside.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Telecommunications Mast, Brill
  11.42 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: It is my privilege to present a petition tonight on behalf of Mr. Tim Andrew and 541 other residents of the parish of Brill in my constituency. The petition objects to the proposed erection by Orange Communications Services Ltd. of three antennae on the fire station drill tower in Temple street or in any other densely populated area of the village, because of the villagers' concern about the health risks that the erection of the antennae could pose.
  The 542 petitioners represent the overwhelming majority of those canvassed on the subject. They state:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to do all in his power to prevent the erection of the said antennae.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Pain Management
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: My interest in the subject of pain management was first aroused by correspondence from constituents—people writing with concerns and complaints about the fact that they were having difficulty securing access to services locally, and in particular that they were waiting a considerable time.
  From those initial inquiries and the correspondence that I had with the local NHS trust, I began to develop an appreciation of the pain management services available to my constituents—their value and their potential.
  One person who, I know, values the help and support that she received from the centre of pain education at Sutton hospital, which is part of the Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust, is Denise. She even wrote a poem to the staff to show how much she appreciated their efforts. Denise was first diagnosed as having rheumatoid arthritis in 1977, when she was just 21 years old. She has lived with pain ever since. With the exception of the period following the initial onset of the disease, she has managed to hold down a full-time job and the running of a household. As she says in her own words:
  Pain rules everything you do. It affects your relationships, as you become irritable and self-obsessed. It affects your social life, as outings have to be carefully planned to take account of your mobility, comfort, etc. It also prevents you joining in with many everyday events because of your special needs.
  However, pain management has transformed Denise's life.
  I have not sought this debate because I have a beef with the Government. Rather, I hope to encourage the Minister to consider pain management, particularly the management of back pain, as a candidate for development and investment as part of the Government's NHS modernisation programme. I believe that investment in pain management services would substantial dividends for individuals, their families, their employers and society as a whole.
  In preparing for the debate, I have been grateful to the patients and staff at the centre of pain education at Sutton hospital for their help and advice. I am also grateful to BackCare, which is the only national charity concerned solely with back pain and reducing its impact. BackCare has done an excellent job of collating a wide range of facts and figures about the prevalence and causes of back pain, many of which exist within Department of Health statistics, but it has brought them together in a way that makes them more comprehensible. I appreciate the work that it has done.
  From that work, it is clear that back pain is clearly the No. 1 cause of disability in Britain. More than 1 million people are disabled by it. But back pain can affect us all. The most recent figures suggest that two in five of the adult population—more than 16 million people—have had back pain lasting for more than a day. One in five of the UK adult population have had pain which lasted for more than four weeks. For 2.5 million people, back pain is constantly with them, day in, day out, without respite.
  Back pain costs the UK some £6 billion a year. As much as two thirds of that is accounted for by 180 million lost working days every year. The cost to the NHS alone
  468
  is put at between £360 million and £640 million a year, with 900,000 hospital bed days per year being taken up by people with back pain.
  The longer someone is off work with back pain, the greater are the odds that they will never return to work. In one in three cases of back pain the condition becomes chronic. For many long-term sufferers, their condition is not susceptible purely to physical interventions or medication. Often psychological or social factors are at play.
  I am interested in how effective care pathways can be devised to integrate primary and secondary care to treat acute back pain with earlier diagnosis and appropriate medication and treatment. Were such pathways developed, the number of people suffering chronic back pain could be reduced significantly.
  Since the UK Clinical Standards Advisory Group reported in 1994 and recommended a number of treatments for back pain, research has found that the availability of pain management services throughout Britain is patchy—perhaps another case of the previous Government's postcode legacy.
  Research for the Medical Research Council and BackCare by the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine concluded that efforts to improve access to those services should be focused on health authorities and primary care groups.
  This month's issue of Professional Nurse features an article entitled "Early management of patients with back pain" by Jan Austin of the James Paget Healthcare NHS trust. The author puts it this way:
  The focus of early management should be to relieve symptoms of pain and prevent disability by prescribing simple analgesia, encouraging the person to take up appropriate activities and arranging physical therapy. At the same time, the GP should encourage the patient to think positively about his or her recovery and return to work, providing advice, reassurance and support using appropriate terminology to avoid the negative effect of poorly chosen language.
  It is worth stressing that bed rest is not recommended. In fact, in many cases, it makes matters worse. But GPs are still recommending that course of action to as many as one in four of the people who come to see them about back pain. That is crazy. Such bad advice fuels a vicious circle of disability. Less activity leads to less mobility, which in turn leads to more pain and greater disability, and so on.
  The fact that such poor advice is being given is worrying, because in 1996 the Royal College of General Practitioners issued guidelines on the management of acute lower back pain, which explicitly ruled out bed rest for back pain. Despite that, studies have found that the management of back pain by GPs falls well short of the guidelines.
  I understand that work is in hand by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's orthopaedic protocols advisory group. The referral protocols that it is drawing up for back pain will be crucial to further progress. I hope that the Minister may be able to give some idea of how that work is proceeding and when it will be concluded and published.
  Aside from the wider benefits of investment in pain management and the benefits for the individual, there are, as I said, savings for the NHS. Evidence from an evaluation of pain management for chronic lower back

  469
  pain conducted by the centre of pain education at Sutton hospital in 1995 found that every 100 people who completed its pain management course produced a saving of £32,000 on analgesics and epidurals. The evaluation also found that seven out of 10 people completing the course had no further appointments with or referrals to consultants.
  The centre of pain education, or COPE, runs 10 out-patient pain management courses a year for people who live with back pain on a daily basis. The programme is provided through a multi-disciplinary team, which comprises a psychologist, a physiotherapist and a nurse, who, under the medical supervision of a pain consultant, use and teach a wide range of techniques for managing pain. Physiotherapy, acupuncture, aromatherapy, relaxation and counselling feature in the COPE armoury.
  The COPE philosophy is holistic and can have a powerful effect. It delivers results. When I recently attended a COPE support group meeting, one person who had been on the course described it to me as coming to an accommodation with pain. COPE has six clear objectives: to reduce depression and anxiety; to increase independence; to review and reduce use of analgesic medication; to reduce absence from and promote return to work; to increase self-confidence in managing pain; and to reduce dependence on the NHS.
  In 1997, 147 people were referred to the unit; in 1998, a further 136 referrals were made; and 120 more people were referred in the first six months of last year. Demand for the service and, consequently, waiting times, have increased. COPE evidence and the testimony of people who have attended the course show that it can change lives.
  The courses stop the downward spiral of increasing use of ever stronger drugs, with all the side effects that that may involve. They give people the confidence and knowledge to ask about their medication. As one course attender described it to me:
  Too familiar is the patient that started off with back pain and ended up by going into renal or liver failure or both.
  Perhaps that is a stark view, but it is echoed by many members of the support group whom I met.
  I should like COPE to develop an outreach programme, perhaps on a pilot basis, in Sutton. It would be based at GP clinics, thus providing easier access and education for patients as well as support for GPs. Such an approach could cut waiting times and allow earlier interventions to occur.
  In the same way, collaboration between GPs, practice nurses and pain management services could lead to guidelines being drawn up on the use of pain relief drugs. A common protocol would go a long way to helping patients who suffer from chronic pain to secure access to effective drug regimes and, if they so desired, strategies for coping with pain with fewer or no drugs.
  COPE currently provides a service only for those who suffer from lower back pain. However, a pilot scheme last year expanded that to include other sites of pain. It showed that other groups of patients responded well to its philosophy. I wonder whether the Minister will therefore encourage such co-operation between primary and secondary care, not only in my constituency, but in other places, especially on developing common protocols and outreach work.
  470
  As a participant in the COPE programme put it to me:
  Having attended the 8 weekly visits to Sutton Hospital COPE Unit my overwhelming regret is that I was unaware of how much difference the skills of the team could have made to my life had I known of them three years ago.
  That person suffered three years of constant pain. Like many other sufferers, she needed primary and secondary care to collaborate closely.
  The article in Professional Nurse to which I referred summed up the point:
  Working within guidelines ensures that patients are referred to the most appropriate point of secondary care, preventing a journey through services with long waiting times and resulting delays in assessment, diagnosis and rehabilitation. Delays fuel frustration and despair, with the patient often waiting months or even years for a referral to a pain clinic when other disciplines have discharged them. Illness behaviour and pain is by then well-established and more difficult to manage.
  Managing pain can make a dramatic difference in the quality of a person's life. It can reduce their dependence on drugs and help them to get back to work; it also has knock-on health benefits.
  I shall end where I began, with Denise. In a letter that she wrote to me, she painted a good picture of what pain management meant to her. One of the passages in her letter particularly struck me and underlined the way in which pain management makes a difference at a personal level. She said:
  One other part of the course that sticks in my mind was the day when we were invited to bring a close relative or friend to one of the sessions. My partner, who has been with me for 17 years, came to the meeting. We realised that although we had coped with my problems for all those years, we had never actually talked about it! He said he learnt a lot about what I had to cope with and I learned how much more he wanted to help me. I realised that I had been struggling needlessly due to a sort of pride and embarrassment. We felt closer afterwards, and since.
  There are beacons of hope and good practice. The Centre of Pain Education in my constituency is one of them. We now need clear guidance to GPs and primary care groups and trusts to build and signpost the care pathways and ensure that the necessary people-centred services are commissioned and provided in primary and secondary care.
  The final sentence of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group 1994 report gave a stark warning. It stated:
  If we do nothing to improve the situation, total social costs of back pain in Britain are likely to continue to increase by up to £0.5 billion per annum.
  We need to do something about that; I hope that the Government will be able to do so.
  11.55 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing this debate on pain management and I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the issues that he raised.
  Pain is a major problem and a common consequence of ill health. Indeed, it is a major cause of ill health. It affects us all at some point in our lives and the experience is always unpleasant and often emotional. It is therefore important that good quality pain management is provided to patients to improve their health care and their quality of life. The debate is timely. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the work of the Clinical Standards Advisory

  471
  Group and he may be pleased to learn that tomorrow we shall publish its last four reports, including one on pain management. I reassure him that that is purely coincidental, although I congratulate him on brilliant timing.
  When pain strikes, it does so in a very individualised way. Therefore, the management of pain must be customised to meet individual needs. The hon. Gentleman raised the case of his constituent, who is suffering from chronic rheumatoid arthritis. Denise's testimony is moving, but, unfortunately, not uncommon in the circumstances. We take the concerns of such people very seriously. The treatment and management of her pain will be very different from the management of pain experienced by a patient recovering from surgery.
  If we experience pain, most of us can get quick relief simply by taking a pill. For some patients—those with hip or joint pain associated with osteoarthritis, for example—a pill offers only temporary respite. Permanent relief may come with a hip or other joint replacement operation, but sadly there is no permanent cure for some people. The group of people with chronic pain conditions such as back pain are sent to specialist pain management clinics, often after entering the national health service system in other specialties and being referred on.
  In this country, pain management began some 50 years ago. In those early days, the pioneer anaesthetist responding to the needs of other doctors would carry out nerve blocks through local anaesthetics that blocked the nerves carrying the pain messages to the brain. However, in the 1960s clinicians and patients began to recognise that pain relief was effective in treating debilitating and distressing illness. As demand grew, the NHS began to establish formal clinics dedicated solely to managing pain in multi-professional teams.
  The Pain Society, which was then known as the Intractable Pain Society of Great Britain, first met in 1962. Virtually every clinician working on pain relief attended—all 17 of them. Today, some 40 years on, almost every acute hospital has a pain service, although there are still considerable local variations in how those services are staffed and the range of treatments that they offer. However, next week's meeting of the Pain Society at the university of Warwick will be attended by more than 700 health care professionals.
  I say this to show how far we have come. In many places, the development of chronic pain services was ad hoc, which has led to some extreme variations in services. Not every health authority can claim to provide the type and range of multidisciplinary services offered at the Centre of Pain Education in Sutton. I congratulate all the people working there on their great dedication and the way in which they have co-ordinated their services in the interests of the patients in that health authority. However, the increasing availability of services means that more patients can be treated. In England in 1998–99, there were more than 82,000 new referrals and more than 236,000 subsequent attendances in pain and anaesthetic clinics compared with some 71,000 new patients and slightly more than 211,000 subsequent attendances in 1996–97.
  Let me now deal with the epidemiology of back pain. I do not argue for a moment with the figures given by the hon. Gentleman, which come from reputable sources and were used to support the clinical standards advisory
  472
  group's study of the epidemiology and cost of back pain in 1994. That is still an important document, which underpins our strategy for dealing with back pain.
  An issue on which the hon. Gentleman and I might disagree is the number of back pain cases that become chronic. That may depend on how we define "chronic". I would argue that back pain is often short-lived and able to right itself without the need for medical treatment; only in a comparatively small number of cases does it become chronic. However, for those in whose cases it does become chronic it is very serious, and merits full attention.
  Back pain is not only tragic for individuals, but the biggest single cause of sickness absence. It accounts for an estimated 12 million GP consultations. Some estimates put the cost to the NHS at as much as £480 million, and refer to some 880,000 out-patient attendances. Some identify a £5 billion cost to industry, and the loss of 11 million working days. That represents a considerable economic loss to the community.
  One way in which we are tackling the occupational health problems is through our "back to work" initiative, which is intended to encourage employers to help us to reduce the incidence of back pain. We also want employers to be more helpful, and to behave more flexibly to patients suffering from back pain on their return to work. I was interested by the hon. Gentleman's observation that the longer someone is off work with back pain, the more difficult it becomes to go back to work. Last month, we announced funding for 19 successful projects to tackle the problem of back pain in the workplace, committing nearly £700,000.
  The clinical standards advisory group's 1994 report on back pain made many practical recommendations about NHS services. It supported the multi-professional approach, and a rehabilitation programme including education and training in back function as well as the teaching of relaxation and coping strategies. The type of service that the hon. Gentleman encountered at the Centre of Pain Education in Sutton would fit its model very well. It is a highly acclaimed local service, with a multi-disciplinary pain management programme running 10 courses per year for patients with back pain for whom current medicine has been unable to find a cure.
  Following the 1994 report, the Department of Health provided funds for a multi-disciplinary working group, led by the Royal College of General Practitioners, to implement some of the recommendations. The hon. Gentleman mentioned those.
  The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that today a new set of guidelines was launched, sponsored by Blue Circle and based on work carried out under the auspices of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine and the Royal College of Physicians. The aim is to improve understanding and management of back pain at work.
  As I said earlier, tomorrow we will publish the report of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group on Pain Services. One of the most striking aspects of the report is the fact that it highlights the variations in care and health services across the country—an issue that Ministers are committed to tackling. While we can offer the very best in many areas, in others services we have a long way to go. One of our aims, as part of the modernisation and extra resources announced in last week's Budget statement, is to ensure equal access to good services.

  473
  I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about adherence to professional guidelines aimed at improving the treatment of acute back pain and preventing longer-term problems. That is why we shall underpin the reports of the clinical standards advisory group and the guidelines of the Royal College of General Practitioners with advice from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the timetable for the work being undertaken by NICE. We have asked NICE to produce protocols offering advice to GPs on when to refer patients with acute lower-back pain to specialists. We recognise that variations in referral practices can make a marked difference to individual patients. Patients' access to the service and to secondary care may be delayed because the system becomes clogged up owing to inappropriate referrals, but there are those who, although they have been referred at the right time and to the right place, end up waiting longer. By proper management of the system, they could find relief and have better and faster treatment elsewhere.
  The aims of the NICE protocols will be to define the condition itself more clearly, to set out precisely what specialists can offer and to set out criteria for prompt referral. Key reasons why a patient should not be referred must be equally clearly defined. Last but not least, the aim will be to set levels of urgency for each referral criterion, so that those in the most urgent need will receive treatment at the earliest opportunity. NICE is looking at a range of issues, but I have been assured that its work in that area will be completed later in the spring.
  It should not be forgotten that, although chronic, intractable pain is primarily a physical, rather than a mental, health problem, the psychological consequences can include severe depression, anxiety and relationship difficulties. I could not have put it better than the hon. Gentleman's constituent, who described what it did not just to her life, but to her relationship with others and, in consequence, their life. People can have problems sustaining a job and a life. As was demonstrated, they can become very dependent on others.
  474
  Psychological approaches, particularly cognitive behavioural approaches, have been shown to be highly effective in helping chronic pain patients to regain some independence. Systematic reviews provide strong evidence of their efficacy. Psychologists are increasingly employed as team members to support staff in their delivery. I have seen in some centres of pain management the use of alternative therapies, whether aromatherapy, reflexology or acupuncture. A whole range supplements allows patients to manage their condition much more effectively.
  I support the need for a collaborative approach to pain. I trust that the additional £8.64 million for Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority, part of a total allocation of £600 million that was announced in the House earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, will allow the authority to develop pain services in Sutton further. Our plans to modernise the NHS include making all parts of the health care system work better together, delivering better health and fast, fair and convenient services that depend on what is wrong with a patient, not where a patient lives.
  We support the adherence to the CSAG guidelines on back pain, which still apply, despite the fact that they were first published in 1994. Those are backed up by further work and by wider use of the Royal College of General Practitioners guidelines on back pain. Those will soon be underpinned by the NICE referral protocols.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that that provides him with some reassurance that we are taking the matter seriously. Although there are no straightforward answers or easy solutions, there are possibilities through a co-ordinated approach to allow people suffering from chronic pain to manage their condition and to live a much fuller and more useful life.
  Mr. Burstow rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think that the Minister has concluded her speech.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Diamond Synchrotron
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Clelland.]
9.30 am
Mr. Graham Brady: It is customary on these occasions to express pleasure at having been fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate to discuss a matter of great importance. I am grateful for the opportunity, although I express regret that it has been left to a Back Bencher to raise a matter of enormous concern not only to the north-west of England but to the nation's scientific community. I regret also that we are having to debate the matter in Westminster Hall; I believe that it should have been accorded the prominence of the Floor of the House of Commons. Nevertheless, it is an important matter that deserves proper parliamentary scrutiny.
The Prime Minister spoke to the north-west group of Labour Members of Parliament about the Government's decision to site the new synchrotron in Oxfordshire rather than in Cheshire, but it is not good enough to address members of only one party; it is a matter of concern to all parties as well as to people in the north-west and elsewhere in Britain. I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring the matter to Parliament, as we can ask the Government to give a fuller account of their decision.
I welcome the Minister for Competitiveness. I have a high personal regard for him. I venture to suggest that he has been sent here this morning because his ministerial colleagues, too, have a high regard for his abilities. However, I am sorry that the Minister who made the decision, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, the Minister for Science, is not able to account for it to elected Members of Parliament. It is an alarming and regrettable trend that Government decisions are made by unelected Ministers who are not directly accountable to the House of Commons.
All parties in the north-west are angry about the decision to site the synchrotron project in Oxfordshire rather than in Daresbury, where the existing synchrotron is sited. We agree with Peter Hetherington's assessment in The Guardian on 22 March, when he said that the move was
a defining moment for the government, and a kick in the teeth for northern MPs.
I give full credit to hon. Members of all parties who have made their position clear and fought their corner for the north-west. I see that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) is present; although he is constrained from speaking, I certainly give him full credit for having fought for his constituents within Government. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There was no need for a sedentary comment. The hon. Gentleman was making a
48WH
perfectly ordinary reference. The Whip is constrained from speaking; it does not help if he intervenes from a sedentary position.
Mr. Brady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was being complimentary; perhaps I should not have taken the trouble.
I know that other hon. Members have made an important contribution. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) described the decision last week as short-sighted, damaging and unimaginative and said that the Government must think again. She added that Lord Sainsbury should reconsider his position as a Minister. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) described Lord Sainsbury's comments as arrogant and dismissive. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), speaking on Monday evening, said:
If ever there was a mixed message to a region, the north-west received one on Budget day.—[Official Report, 27 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 62].
I seek to be broadly non-partisan by trying to give credit to Members of all parties. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has raised the matter in the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) has been battling hard on the issue since his election last July. He has asked me to apologise for the fact that a binding commitment means that he cannot be here this morning.
The issue is not just regional but, perhaps most importantly, scientific. The scientific community is baffled by the decision. Professor Woolfson, who chaired the 1993 review that led to the original decision to build the new Diamond synchrotron said in a letter—I think that it was to The Times—that he was dismayed by the decision. He said:
Daresbury … where the UK built the first dedicated synchrotron source … was identified as a world centre of excellence … Users from many countries benefited from the expertise of the resident staff.
He added that more was achieved there than could be achieved with more advanced synchrotrons elsewhere.
Professor Woolfson continued:
many staff will take early retirement or lucrative jobs overseas … rather than move to Didcot with its high housing costs and UK salaries. It will take a decade or more to build up a team with the competence … and effectiveness that exists at Daresbury … It is disingenuous of the prime minister to say that there is no north-south divide. There is … and the Diamond decision has made it wider. Other things being equal the government should give preference to northern areas. In this case, other things are not equal and the northern site is, for many reasons, far the better. I fear that a dreadful mistake has been made.
The man whose report instigated the development of the new Diamond synchrotron project is firmly of the opinion that the Government have made the wrong decision and that the siting should have gone to Cheshire and not Oxfordshire.
Even those who have backed the siting at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory frequently say that the case is tenuous. The Prime Minister has said that the scientific case is "marginally in favour" of Oxfordshire. Lord Sainsbury, answering questions in the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs last week, said that the French Government and the Wellcome Trust favoured the decision "on balance" but "not overwhelmingly."

49WH
The French Government told the BBC that they did not favour one site over another. Following the dismissal of the French Minister, Mr Allegre, it is likely that the French Soleil project will proceed. A distinct possibility is that the French Government will want to withdraw from the Diamond project.
The Government have sought to hide behind the Wellcome Trust, but in evidence submitted to the Select Committee on Science and Technology a couple of months ago, the trust made it clear that it wanted to hold an open competition for the selection of the new synchrotron site. On 19 January 1999, the trust said in its evidence that the Office of Science and Technology agreed that an open competition would be acceptable.
On 28 April 1999, the OST proposed that the new synchrotron should be located at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory site near Oxford. The OST was the first to suggest that that should be the site, not the Wellcome Trust, which favoured a full open competition. The Committee noted in the minutes of evidence that the trust said:
After much discussion the Governors agreed that the RAL site was an acceptable compromise.
The trust's understanding was that that was the jointly agreed site, until it received a letter from the Secretary of State on 4 October 1999, which said that there were
only two credible sites in the UK for this project, RAL and Daresbury,
and that he was
minded to site the new Synchrotron at Daresbury.
The director of the trust responded to the letter on 7 October, noting that it had been persuaded by the OST to accept its proposal in favour of RAL. Further, the director said:
if the new synchrotron is not located at RAL, the Wellcome Trust would wish to explore some form of non-exclusive competition to identify an alternative site for the development of the new synchrotron radiation facility.
The Secretary of State replied on 11 October, dismissing the idea of an open competition, stating that there were only two sites. He concluded by saying that he was still minded to locate the new synchrotron at Daresbury.
On 15 October, the director of the Wellcome Trust said that several institutions around the country had approached the trust, suggesting an interest in siting the new synchrotron. Whether they could present a credible case if encouraged to do so has not been examined. The Secretary of State responded on 1 November. He stated that he
did not see any benefit from undertaking a new competition for the site
and that he had
decided to site the new synchrotron at Daresbury.
Who insisted on Oxfordshire? We know from the French Government that it was not the French and we know that the Wellcome Trust's preference was for an open competition. We know that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not insist on that location, because he announced on 1 November last year his decision to site the new Diamond synchrotron at Daresbury. The insistence came from somebody who is
50WH
even closer to the Prime Minister than the Secretary of State: someone who has close personal links with him and who has never had to face an election, as I noted at the beginning of the debate. I am speaking of Lord Sainsbury, who pressed for Diamond's location at Rutherford Appleton early last year, initially through the Office of Science and Technology. Why did he press for that site? I doubt whether any hon. Members who are present and who represent the north-west know; I also doubt whether anyone outside the magic circle around Downing street knows the true answer.
On 19 March, The Observer pointed to a web of connections, back-scratching and potential conflicts of interest. It referred to
Concerns that the charity wields undue influence over government
and said that there were a number of close links between the trust and Whitehall. It went on to state:
Blair's chief scientific adviser, Sir Robert May … works in the same Oxford University zoology department as Professor Roy Anderson, one of the key governors of the Wellcome Trust board.
It pointed out that Wellcome funds a scientist at the John Innes centre, which shares a site with the Sainsbury laboratory in Norwich, and that they have a joint venture company to exploit their discoveries. It also told us:
The Wellcome Trust is paying for a key employee to work inside the Government's Office for Science and Technology.
If the decision remains unchanged, it will take more than £500 million out of the economy of the north-west and send it to Oxfordshire. That is a spectacular instance of regional policy operating in reverse. It will take the newest and most high-tech jobs either to the south of England or overseas to other synchrotron facilities, and move a major scientific institution out of the north-west. I shall cite the words of a constituent of mine, Professor Young, of the Manchester materials science centre at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, who wrote to the Prime Minister on 13 February. He stated:
Daresbury is of major benefit to our region. Its loss would have a profound effect upon employment and upon the north-west science base.
There is no compelling scientific case for a move to Oxford, but there is a compelling regional case to keep the new facility in Cheshire. The reasons given by Ministers are contradicted by those at whose door they are trying to lay the blame. It is unacceptable for such important national decisions to be taken by a small coterie around the Prime Minister without explanation or debate. I hope that this debate will force greater accountability and openness on a Government who frequently prefer to deal in secret. If there is a genuine public policy reason for the decision to abandon Daresbury and to site the Diamond synchrotron in Oxfordshire, then let us hear it today. If not, let the decision be changed.
9.43 am
Ms Helen Southworth: I did not appreciate the comments with which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) began his speech, when he complained that Labour Members had been leading the campaign for Diamond at Daresbury and had been speaking to the Prime Minister about the

51WH
matter. He said that it was not good enough to address only one party in the House. I would have appreciated his active participation in the campaign for Diamond at Daresbury at an early date, before the decision was made. Instead, he has waited until now, when he has the opportunism to criticise after the event. Does the Tory Front-Bench team support his decision to site Diamond at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory? I shall give way if the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) wants to clarify her party's position.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I am here today to examine in detail the process by which the Government reach important decisions. The issue is of great importance to people in the north-west and in Oxfordshire. I am concerned not about the location but about the integrity of the Government's decision-making process and its lack of transparency.
Ms Southworth: The hon. Lady is not prepared to answer my question; instead, she diverts us with red herrings. Does the Tory Front-Bench team support the siting of Diamond at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory?
Mrs. Browning: I do not have the background information on which the decision was made. It is in order to obtain that information and make a judgment that I am seeking clarification from the Minister.
Ms Southworth: The hon. Lady has made my point: either the Conservatives are behind the times and resort to opportunism and criticism, or they have not been paying attention for the past nine months when everyone else has been making a case to locate Diamond at Daresbury.
I have a final question for the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should be making a speech. This is not Question Time.
Ms Southworth: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it remains the case that the Conservative Front-Bench team has not spoken in favour of Diamond at Daresbury.
Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Southworth: No.
Synchrotrons accelerate electrons to a speed close to that of light and act as sources of intense radiation over a spectrum ranging from X-rays to the infra-red. It is appropriate to cast some light on the science. Synchrotrons are used by physicists, chemists and molecular biologists to study atomic structure and movements in a vast number of different types of matter, from semiconductors in computer chips to living muscle. They are not science fiction; they are engines that are essential to scientific, technological and, in our knowledge-driven economy, economic success.
Synchrotrons are not merely high-technology machines with exacting specifications. It is not possible to put a synchrotron in a box, label it and send it somewhere else. It will not function without a high-
52WH
quality team of scientists and technicians. Daresbury laboratory, although on the outskirts of my constituency, is an important part of it. It has been the home of British synchrotron science for 25 years. One of the few good things about the process of choosing a site for Diamond—the third generation synchrotron that will replace the current machine—is that is has made evident the worldwide reputation of Daresbury scientists and technicians among the scientific community of synchrotron users.
The Daresbury staff provide world-class experimental and computational facilities. Their outstanding performance has been endorsed by some of the world's leading scientists. The director of research at the European synchrotron radiation facility at Grenoble said that Daresbury staff
have an international reputation for innovative design and technology.
Dr. Binns, chair of the synchrotron radiation source surface science user group, and Professor Norris, chair of the SRS user forum, said:
Daresbury has been the site of all synchrotron radiation development work in the UK for over 30 years and now employs a world class team of machine physicists and engineers … there is an innovative detector programme led by the scientific research staff which will put the UK at the forefront of instrumentation for synchrotron radiation experiments.
Professor Margantondo, co-ordinator of the European round table for synchrotron radiation, explained that
a synchrotron laboratory is not merely a collection of instruments. Its ultimate success relies primarily on the competence, creativity and stature of its staff and users … acquiring such a multi-faceted competence at an international level of excellence takes decades—and the result is a resource of invaluable importance. Every expert in the field would agree that Daresbury laboratory constitutes such a resource. I would like to mention in particular the domains of spectroscopy and surface science in general, as well as structural techniques. The worldwide reputation of Daresbury laboratory is virtually unmatched in these areas.
Unfortunately, I do not have time to detail the hundreds of similar comments from world-leading scientists commending the laboratory's staff. Nobel prize winners, directors of international establishments, university vice-chancellors and senior synchrotron users have been vocal in their admiration of the Daresbury team over many months. I am extremely proud of the staff at Daresbury who have been able to generate such support for their campaign.
Thanks to the quality of the scientific research and technical support at the laboratory, the first Nobel prize awarded for research work at a synchrotron X-ray source—of which there are 40 in the world—came to Britain with the award of the 1997 chemistry prize to Sir John Walker. Daresbury research scientists are heading research teams on £15 million-worth of research programmes. One of the most exciting is led by Dr. Rob Lewis, a constituent of mine, who is developing a revolution in the early diagnosis of breast cancer. He is using the powers of the rays of the synchrotron to spot tumours as small as a full stop.
The research team is entirely based in the north-west and has taken five years to build up. Its work is vital. I have raised its significance directly with my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and at the highest levels of Government. I am determined that the work will

53WH
continue and that we should give it every support. It could save thousands of women's lives and it must be protected and given a secure environment in which to develop. Furthermore, it is essential that all scientists and technicians who are responsible for Britain's international success in structural biology and physical and material science have a secure future and can continue to use their skills and creativity in the interests of British science in the public sector.
Two weeks ago, the Government took a decision to locate Diamond, the third generation synchrotron, not at Daresbury laboratory, but at Rutherford Appleton laboratory near Oxford. That is a bad decision. It has undermined the confidence of Daresbury staff and has put the future effectiveness of Britain's synchrotron science at risk. The Select Committee on Science and Technology investigated the issue of location for Diamond and found nothing to choose between the two sites on science grounds, deciding that other factors would have to be taken into consideration.
Like many of my Labour colleagues in the north-west and on the Select Committee, I expected those other considerations to include two essential factors: the critical importance of the Daresbury staff in the design, building and operation of the new machine—they represent the total repository of Britain's synchrotron science—and the key importance to the regional economy of a synchrotron in the north-west. Science and research drive the new economy and our region is still struggling to create new industries after the wholesale destruction of our manufacturing base under the Tory Government. Biotech industries are a key part of our future success. We are good at them and that must be recognised.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the Wellcome Trust in a letter of 4 October that he was minded to site Diamond at Daresbury because of all the factors that I have mentioned. The Wellcome Trust, a partner in the project to create the third generation synchrotron, decided, in secret, unilaterally to veto the siting of Diamond at Daresbury and to insist that it should go to Rutherford Appleton laboratory near Oxford—or it would withdraw its partnership. Why? Who knows? The Wellcome Trust has not been prepared to meet local Members of Parliament or north-west civic leaders to discuss the issue.
Mr. Robert Jackson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Southworth: Not now.
In their public and private utterances, Wellcome representatives have exhibited a prejudice in favour of Oxford that seems to have been grounded on the opinion that Rutherford Appleton has a better scientific culture, but when pressed for evidence they have provided none. They have mumbled about scientists drinking coffee together in Oxford, but we have perfectly good coffee in the north-west. After considerable prevarication, during which it gave information to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) that it was not prejudiced in favour of either site, the Wellcome trust issued a statement on 23 November, which said:
54WH
On the basis of the evidence made available to us, the Wellcome Trust has concluded that the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL), in Oxfordshire, has a number of advantages when compared with the Daresbury Laboratory as the site of the new UK-French synchrotron.
Our preferred option wa to carry out a site solicitation exercise between a number of sites in addition to Daresbury and RAL. We were persuaded that such an exercise should be constrained to the two Government sites only and we believe that there is a stronger scientific case for locating the synchrotron at RAL.
I am afraid that the trust has not been able to demonstrate that stronger scientific case.
Mr. Jackson: It is clear from the hon. Lady's remark about mumbling over coffee that she is not aware that the director of the Wellcome Trust, in his evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, of which I am a member, gave a full and clear account of the reasons why the trust favoured the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.
Ms Southworth: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman chooses to speak on behalf of the Wellcome Trust. It has been considerably advantageous to him that the trust took the position that it did. I listened to all the evidence given to the Select Committee, and the main points made by the director of the Wellcome Trust were rather vague scientific points, for which he could not produce any evidence. I was taught that science is about theory, creativity, imagination and testing the evidence. I have not seen the Wellcome Trust testing the evidence. In fact, I issue a challenge to the Wellcome Trust to meet local Members of Parliament to explain its position because, frankly, it appears to have been using science like a drunk uses a lamp-post—not so much for illumination as for support.
If I am wrong, I shall be happy to hear the trust justify its position. I am shocked that the representatives of the Wellcome Trust, who are senior scientists, are not prepared to defend their case in public. I am also surprised that the two professors from London university. two professors from Cambridge university and three professors from Oxford university who make up the majority of members of the Wellcome Trust, are not prepared to explain the scientific evidence for their case. I assume that it is because they do not have a case to explain and are more interested in the quality of wine at the high table than in the quality of science. I find that shocking.
The actions of the Wellcome Trust have damaged the credibility of the decision-making process and cast considerable doubt on the probity of its involvement in that process. I would be very happy for the trust to set the record straight. I also challenge it to publish the minutes of the board meetings at which the decision was made, because I should like to know who participated in the decision-making process and whether any interests were declared.
Mr. Brady: On the subject of setting the record straight, I raised the matter with the Government before the decision was taken, on behalf of both constituents who work at the site and scientists who use it.
Ms Southworth: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I would have been happy to have had his

55WH
support on the issue, to which many Labour Members have devoted considerable effort. I want to put on record my thanks and the thanks of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale, who is unable to participate in the debate, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg), for the extensive support that we received from north-west Members, as well as from members of the Science and Technology Committee.
Several outstanding issues must be addressed following the bad decision that was made. It is essential that the SRS at Daresbury can continue to operate fully while the new instrument is built. That depends on the continued availability of and Government commitment to the current technical support and scientific research teams at Daresbury. I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has agreed to meet representatives of the staff teams soon to discuss their future and the support action that the Government will take to ensure that Daresbury laboratory has a future. It is essential to build confidence in its continuation, to back that with an investment programme and to secure for the research scientists and technicians a future that will recognise their career needs.
It is essential that we develop a strategy in the north-west and build on the co-operation of the research universities, business, local government, regional development agencies and the research institutions that have up to now supported the campaign for Diamond at Daresbury, and need to be drawn on to ensure that science in the north-west develops an international reputation for the future. It is essential, too, that we build a third generation synchrotron that is of international excellence, on time, within budget and without a dark period. Many of us will observe closely to ensure that biosciences do not go through a dark period because of an unwise decision to site the laboratory at Rutherford Appleton.
Above all, it is vital that the north-west should develop a strategy on science that builds on and complements the excellence in the regions. It must be explicit, it must have the Government's full support and it must not be distorted or taken off track by intransigent partners with vested interests. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to address all those issues and to ensure that the Government respond positively.
10.1 am
Mr. Robert Jackson,: It is an honourable tradition, Mr. Chairman—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I correct the hon. Gentleman? While I am in the Chair, the form of address is Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I am replaced by Mr. O'Hara, he will be addressed as Mr. O'Hara or Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jackson: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for drawing my attention to that important point of protocol.
It is an honourable tradition of the House that all of us speak for our constituencies. I understand well why hon. Members from constituencies in the north-west spoke as they did, but we—and the Government—also have a responsibility to think in terms of the national interest.
56WH
I am the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which the Rutherford Appleton laboratory is situated. My motive for speaking today, and the line that I have taken in previous debates, will therefore be thought by hon. Members from the north-west to be easily explicable.
Mr. Ian Stewart: How many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents came to him to demand that the synchrotron facility be removed from the north-west and located in his constituency?
Mr. Jackson: The answer is not very many. I will say more about that. No doubt what I am about to say will be interpreted by Members with north-west constituencies as simply an expression of constituency sentiment, but I assure them that I do not approach these important matters in that way. Our area of Oxfordshire has very high employment and there is considerable prosperity. We are part of the wealth-creating sector of the British economy. There are considerable pressures on housing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) told the Chamber. I therefore spend much of my time resisting new developments in my constituency to try to avoid excessive development in our part of the world. Accordingly, I do not approach this matter in a narrow, particularistic, constituency way.
I might add that I have some personal experience of such decisions. I know that there is no greater back number than an ex-Minister, but I have twice been Minister with responsibility for the research councils, in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. I also have some personal experience of taking such decisions and of the interests that are involved. It is against that background that I make my comments.
The Government have been saying, as today's debate has revealed, that the scientific arguments for location at the Rutherford laboratory are marginal. I do not agree. The Government are taking that line, as in the press release issued by the Department of Trade and Industry at the time of the announcement, because it was the only explanation that they could find for the delayed decision: delayed in the face of the powerful lobby from the north-west. The only plausible explanation for the delay was that the scientific case was marginal, so that was what was said; but I believe that the scientific case is overwhelming, and that is why I have supported the project coming to Oxfordshire.
The arguments supporting that case concern central scientific facilities. The Rutherford laboratory offers the United Kingdom a central facility for large scientific instruments, which play an increasingly important role in western European and international science. Such an arrangement is beneficial because it reduces overheads: it will be possible to run the new synchrotron at the Rutherford laboratory with a substantial reduction in administrative and technical overheads, and additional money will thus be available to invest in science. That is a powerful argument for locating such instruments on a single site.
Sometimes, the arguments for central facilities are dismissed in the belief that those using them are merely taking coffee together or drinking wine at high table. Such meetings are important, even if they are easy to

57WH
caricature, as the hon. member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) demonstrated. They permit cross-fertilisation and synergy between diverse user communities: those also are powerful arguments for central facilities.
There is also a local argument in relation to the Rutherford laboratory. The decision to invest in the early 1980s in the spallation neutron source of Isis machine at the Rutherford laboratory was an earlier important Government decision on scientific investment. That machine is approaching the end of its useful life and a successor is needed. Such a machine will cost a great deal, so international partners are needed. Locating the synchrotron in the Rutherford laboratory alongside that new machine will help to enable the laboratory's financial and user base to be broadened. The presence of the synchrotron in the Rutherford laboratory will help to broaden the potential international appeal of the other new machine that will be required in due course.
Ms Southworth: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Diamond is being taken away from the north-west and sited at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory so that that laboratory can justify its future existence? Surely, if the science is as excellent as the. hon. Gentleman says, it can be undertaken without taking science away from the north-west?
Mr. Jackson: I support the decision partly because it strengthens the position of the Rutherford Appleton laboratory as a national and international centre of excellence.
The supporters of the Daresbury laboratory are, in effect, arguing that national and international centres of excellence should be dispersed and broken up. That is the logic of their case regarding central facilities such as the Rutherford Appleton laboratory and our elite universities. However, national and international trends are in the opposite direction. Money and scientific manpower are scarce, and there is increasing competition between research centres throughout the world. We must therefore invest more in our national centres of excellence, not less.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that centres of scientific excellence in the north-west should be dismembered and that the south-east should be the ony part of the country to have such centres? Is he seriously offering that as a proper policy for this country?
Mr. Jackson: Having a national centre for excellence for such machines is a proper policy for this country. There happens to be one such centre in my constituency, so that is where this kind of investment should be concentrated.
Dr. Brian Iddon: The debate about centres of excellence is important. However, concentrating science in a small number of sites reduces the competition essential to scientific progress.
Mr. Jackson: I agree that there is a problem with competition, but the real competition is not within this
58WH
country: it is international. The significant competition is between the Rutherford laboratory and other centres in Europe and around the world. The Government have rightly strengthened our national position in the context of that international competition.
I wish to make a mild complaint—it will be made more vociferously by other colleagues—about the way in which the decision was handled. The Government received clear scientific advice from people who—despite what the hon. Member for Warrington, South said—had no axe to grind. It came from Government scientific advisers, from the director general for research councils and from the Wellcome Trust.
Mr. David Watts (St. Helens, North): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is wrong for the Wellcome Trust to use its financial muscle to dictate policy to the Government? Does he accept that such people have a duty to declare their pecuniary or professional interests before taking decisions and that, by not doing so, they have destroyed all credibility regarding their views on this matter?
Mr. Jackson: I shall say more about the Wellcome Trust in a moment. However, I do not believe that Wellcome Trust members had any interest in the matter: indeed, they had less interest in it than the hon. Gentleman and many of his colleagues. The Wellcome Trust is an independent third party and makes a valuable contribution to British science; he should treat it with more respect. I shall return to its role in a moment.
Mr. Ian Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is no inherent intellectual capital in a machine? The true intellectual capital is in the people who worked on these issues in Daresbury for 25 years; and he should show them more respect.
Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman does not understand how Daresbury works. Central facilities are run by local people there—and I pay all due tribute to them—but they are used by people from all over the country and all over the world, and will continue to be so used in future. May I say to the hon. Members who have intervened that I am not speaking for the Government, though it may sometimes sound like it? Their comments would be best addressed to Ministers who have responsibility for these decisions.
The Government received clear scientific advice from their advisers and from the Wellcome Trust—a completely independent organisation, as I said, with no axe to grind. They were then faced with a strong campaign—we have seen a manifestation of its strength this morning—from north-west Members of Parliament and trade unionists. It was perfectly reasonable for them to campaign but, frankly, the spirit behind it was, as they say in America, the spirit of the pork barrel.
In the face of that campaign, the Department of Trade and Industry deferred the decision. Consequently, the scientific argument was lost to view and pressure was put on the Wellcome Trust to change its position. Pressure was also pushed upwards within the governmental system to No. 10 Downing street. Let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and

59WH
Sale, West that the decision was not taken by Lord Sainsbury, excellent man though he is. It was a personal decision taken by the Prime Minister. It is deplorable that our Prime Minister was put in the position of having to take that decision, but I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating him on the strong, sensible decision that he took. It is precisely on such decisions that the quality of a Government can be judged.
The Government faced, as I said, a vigorous campaign by their own Back Benchers. All sorts of populist themes—north versus south, for example—were deployed, and they had to be countered by esoteric, scientific arguments. In that context, the Government and the Prime Minister decided to do the right thing.
Rover is in the news now. In the late 1950s—
Mr. Watts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government had little choice but to take the decision because they were blackmailed by the Wellcome Trust? Does he think it right that the Wellcome Trust should use its financial muscle to get a decision that the Government do not want to take?
Mr. Jackson: I do not regard what the Wellcome Trust did as blackmail. The Government did not have to do what it wanted them to do; they had only to find the money to replace that of the Wellcome Trust, but they chose not to do so.
Ms Southworth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jackson: No, I want to continue my speech.
The Government took a sensible, rational decision on which I congratulate them.
In the late 1950s there was an argument about the siting of a new car plant, which is now part of Rover. In the face of populist campaigning, Harold Macmillan's Government made what he cynically called in his diaries "my judgment of Solomon". As his Government was providing a subsidy, he decided that the plant should be in two different places. That is one of the many reasons why Rover has not been effective, and both plants are probably now closed. Macmillan's Government took a bad decision in the face of populist pressure; in the face of similar pressure, this Government have taken the right decision.
However, the Prime Minister's decision was made in an unsatisfactory way, because of the growing centralisation of Government, especially in relation to science. There used to be a basic principle of scientific autonomy, which was a reflection of the autonomy of our universities. There was a structure within which research councils were genuinely independent, which was co-ordinated by the Advisory Board for Research Councils. It was a mistake—I say "mea culpa" because I was involved in preparing the 1993 science White Paper. In 1992, the Government abolished the Advisory Board for Research Councils because it gave Ministers more power. Giving more power to Ministers to take such decisions has exposed them to more political pressure, which is not always well advised. We need a mechanism for more independence and autonomy in decision taking about science through a structure such as the ABRC and the research councils.
60WH
However, there is a ray of light: the emergence in Britain of the Wellcome Trust, the largest scientific charity in the world. It is genuinely independent of Government, has its own financial resources and can make an important contribution to rebalancing the process of decision taking, reinforcing the autonomy of the scientific community rather than the politicising of decisions.
It is ill advised, apart from being stupid, to blackguard the Wellcome Trust, because it is now, and will continue to be, an important partner for Government and university science, and not only in this country. We should remember that it could spend its money outside this country—the terms of its trust allow it to do so. It behoves Parliament to treat the Wellcome Trust with greater respect. It was a bad decision to leave the argument about scientific merits out of the picture; the Government have left themselves with little alternative but to say "We had to do it because Wellcome was putting a pistol to our head." That is not a good way to treat an important partner.
I hope that hon. Members from the north-west will now give up their attack on the Wellcome Trust. It has behaved honourably and reasonably, according to the terms of its trust, which were explained to us in the Science and Technology Committee by the director, Dr. Dexter. It is concerned with science and not with regional policy.
I congratulate the Wellcome trustees on taking a clear view of the scientific balance of argument for this country and on standing firm in the face of an unpleasant and personal campaign of abuse. I should like in particular to congratulate Dr. Dexter, the director of the Wellcome Trust, on his firmness and courage on this matter. Now that the Government have stripped out the autonomy of the scientific community in this country, it is just as well that the Wellcome Trust is around to keep the Government honest. I should like to end by congratulating it on what it has done.
10.19 pm
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I too, hope that the debate will shed some light on how a decision came to be taken that is wrong for science, wrong for the country and wrong for the region. I hope that it will also accelerate efforts to restore confidence at Daresbury and throughout the north-west and among scientists across the country. I hope that it will help to ensure that the north-west is not treated in that way again.
This is an issue for science. It is an issue about the national interest. It is also an issue about the region. When the regional development agency introduced its first regional economic strategy last year, it identified the importance of establishing a strong science base. That was fundamental to developing our economy and it is one of the reasons why the decision that has been taken seems to fly in the face of common sense and of the knowledge and commitment in the region.
The strategy must build on the sad legacy left us by the previous Government, in which Government-backed research funding supports 10.5 times more jobs in the south-east than in the north-west and 71 per cent. of the budget for research is spent in the south-east. We want to change that. It must be a source of great disappointment that the change has not yet been possible.

61WH
Clearly, we should establish the facts. The facts are that there was no strong scientific case for transferring synchrotron investment from Daresbury to Oxfordshire in the south-east. A recent survey showed that 80 per cent. of users of Daresbury wanted the work to stay there. Furthermore, it has been shown that it would have been cost-effective to stay there. A detailed research study by PricewaterhouseCoopers showed that it was cost-effective to stay in Daresbury and that moving to Oxfordshire would incur more costs and make the project more vulnerable to skills shortages. Professor Woolfson, who chaired the committee on the new synchrotron, confirmed that a dreadful mistake had been made in the decision to move from Cheshire to Oxfordshire.
One of the grave concerns highlighted is the lack of consideration given to the regional impact. The impact is on jobs, on scientific expertise and on the joint work currently carried out by the laboratory with hospitals, research institutions and businesses throughout the north-west. The important issue of cancer research has been highlighted; great steps are being taken to make new discoveries and to improve our work on cancer research. It would be criminal if that work were to be stopped. Important industrial research is also being carried out, particularly through the centre for surface science at Liverpool university. That university was the first in the country to operate a beam line directly with synchrotron research. That research is now vulnerable, partly because the people leading the team are being sought by other research institutions, abroad as well as in this country.
The question of the Wellcome Trust deserves examination. We need much more clarity about its role in the decision. We need to know not only what it said—although it is difficult to find out what it said to the Government—but what role it played. If outside partners are to fund scientific and other research we need to establish what their role is, what points they are making and what interests they represent.
This is a sad debate, which should not have been necessary, but it is on a matter of grave importance to science and confidence. It is also important in ensuring that the national interest is served by developing all the regions and considering matters such as the Daresbury laboratory, which is a centre of scientific excellence. We should recognise that the national interest is served by developing centres of excellence, not running them down.
I hope that the concerns expressed and the evidence adduced will ensure that greater attention is paid to the need to preserve scientific excellence and the scientific knowledge base in the north-west. I also hope that the working party that has been set up with the North West regional development agency and the Department of Trade and Industry, with the support of Members of Parliament, will quickly identify additional projects and bring new research into the north-west. It is essential that progress be made quickly. We need to boost confidence, to show those who work at the sharp end in the north-west that their skills are valued and to recognise that the needs of the people in the region and the country can be served only if we develop excellence wherever it is found.
10.26 am
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I support what has been said by the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth). Although there might be differences in tone, the sense of shock—almost grief—about the loss of the Daresbury facility has spread across the parties and is powerfully felt in the north-west. That loss has not produced a synthetic row; it has hit the foundations of confidence in the future development and growth of the north-west. Although I understand the remarks of the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and the interests that he represents, I hope that he will not underestimate the genuine and sincere anger and bitterness that the decision has produced.
In 1967, I started work with the then Runcorn development corporation. Daresbury is on the fringe of that area. That was the first time that I encountered the facility. In 1981, I was elected to Cheshire county council, and Daresbury was then in that county. I served on that council with the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg), who is here today. It is fair to say that Daresbury has always been a symbol of technological and scientific excellence in that area. Now that I represent Hazel Grove, some 25 miles away, I still feel a sense of identification with the work done at the facility. Some of my constituents work there and have corresponded with me.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Warrington, South was a mite ungenerous in the way in which she considered the all-party support for the project. I have corresponded with Ministers and have copied that correspondence to the chief executive of Halton council. I have made it clear that I fully support the location of the Diamond project at Daresbury, as hon. Members from all parties have done during the past year or so.
The synchrotron was sited at Daresbury for geological reasons—the site had unusually horizontal strata—but the current synchrotron is not horizontal but vertical, and its characteristic tower can be seen from many places in the area. It is sad that, after two generations of excellence, the third generation of possible excellence will be taken away from Daresbury and the north-west and located in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wantage.
Mr. Robert Jackson: I was the Minister who decided to locate the second generation synchrotron at Daresbury. It had nothing to do with my constituency; the issue was the scientific advantage.
Mr. Stunell: Perhaps it will mollify north-west Members somewhat to know that, even if the hon. Gentleman is now the apostle of darkness, there was a time when he was the apostle of light. It is a pity that the conversion happened that way round.
I should like the Government to reverse the decision, although I called it irreversible in business questions last week. If Labour Members could persuade the Government to reverse it, I would be delighted. We should concentrate this morning on what to do next as on how on earth we got to where we are now. The decision is difficult to understand from the north-west perspective. Despite what the hon. Member for Wantage said about the project and his theory about

63WH
scientific centres of excellence, it is difficult for us in the north-west to accept the decision, bearing in mind the site and the dedicated work force in an acknowledged area of excellence with academic links that have been properly described as international. Whether one flies from Tokyo to Daresbury or from Tokyo to Oxford is irrelevant. Indeed, Daresbury is nearer to Manchester airport than Oxford is to Heathrow. Some of the arguments are difficult to comprehend and display ex post facto reasoning by those who support the change.
It is especially difficult to see how a Labour Government could have made such a decision. When necessary, I am a critic of the Government, but I should have thought that they took regional policy seriously. The decision to change the site would have been more explicable if the hon. Member for Wantage were still the science Minister. He has made it clear that, had he still been in that post, he would have made the same decision. I would have expected better from a Labour Government with a commitment to regional policy and to doing something about the north-south divide. Perhaps I should not have been so optimistic.
I turn now to what we may call the Wantage argument, which is that it would be a good idea to have one major scientific centre of excellence. Presumably, that means one centre in the United Kingdom, not in the European Union or the world; the argument does not have any boundaries when a process of centralisation has been started. On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman argued that it would be good to have such a centre in Wantage, while on the other he argued that he did not want political centralisation of decision making about science and that that had been a mistake and a process in which he regretted participating. There is a dichotomy between the idea of decentralised decision making at the political level and centralised outcomes at the scientific level.
What does the north-west do next, given that we have lost £500 million of investment potential as a result of the decision? We will have not the high-tech capital investment that was expected but a highly skilled research and technology work force with time on their hands. I hope that the Minister will tell us what will happen in the future and not only talk about how the Government reached their decision, although that would be of interest. What alternatives do the Government propose for the north-west? What will be the replacement structure for maintaining our research and technology lead in the north-west? How do the Government propose to fill the gap and how will they compensate the north-west and mitigate the blow?
I have listened to many ministerial responses in debates such as this. It is possible to produce warm words, to soften the blow and to sound full of consideration and compassion, but what we need is a clear, positive programme of action and investment. That is what I want to hear from the Government.
The Daresbury facility has done long and valiant service, and is still providing good service—its current projects were mentioned earlier. The synchrotron project may have been lost, but it is now vital for the Minister to explain how the north-west will keep its research and technological lead in the next decade and the decades beyond.
10.35 am
Mrs. Angela Browning: Unlike hon. Members who have spoken so far, I clearly do not have a constituency or regional case to make. My purpose is to identify how Government decisions are made; the process that was examined to enable the Government to reach their decision; and, on a wider front, how those considerations may influence the Government's thinking and policy making in terms of scientific clusters around the country.
My reading of what has happened is that the Government are starting to make decisions about clusters. I am not necessarily challenging that, but if it is to be subject to input from a range of people—not only politicians—it is important that the Government spell out the policy on which they now seem to be embarking. The hon. Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) asked me what my decision would have been and whether I think that the right location has been chosen. A decision about that can be made only by those who have analysed all the evidence and heard all the representations before making a judgment.
As a former Minister, I am well aware that when such a judgment is made, not everyone will be pleased. At the very least, it should be possible to account for the way in which the decision was reached. That is lacking in the decision that was made in this context, not least because in the run-up to the announcement—we have heard that it was somewhat convoluted—every public pronouncement by the Secretary of State and others, particularly when he gave evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, suggested that he was "minded" to locate the project at Daresbury. The decision was suddenly reversed—apparently by the Prime Minister. I challenge not the outcome but the lack of transparency that would enable others to look at how the process was carried out and determine whether it was the right decision.
Mr. Ian Stewart: Does that mean that Conservative Front Benchers have no view about regional policy or about where the Synchrotron should be?
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue. I hope that the Minister will throw some light on the matter. If such decisions are to be made, are they to be made in future on the basis of regional policy and the regional importance to the significant scientific community in the north-west, or are the Government now embarking on a policy of scientific clustering in different locations? It is important that the House knows that. I will come in a moment to a quotation from Lord Sainsbury's press release that indicates that he has already a view of what the dynamics of scientific research and work in the north-west should be. It is important that that decision is shared with the House and others outside it.
Mr. Stewart: No answer.
Mrs. Browning: North-west Labour Members are upset because they have spent three years prefacing everything that they have said with, "May I congratulate my hon. Friend?" Now they find themselves saying, "May I criticise my hon. Friend?" I see that they have a problem.

65WH
It is strategically important for the scientific community to know whether the decison will drive decisions made by the future Government on science. I think that the Government are now determining where scientific clusters will be located. If they are, they must share that information with the House so that we can examine the way in which they form their judgments and the overall strategic plan for not only Daresbury or the north-west, but the United Kingdom.
There has been a lot of confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has done well to bring the matter to the attention of the Chamber. The reason why Rutherford Appleton emerged as a possible site is not clear. The Wellcome Trust released a statement on 24 November suggesting a preference for Rutherford Appleton, but Nature reported in November that it did not have a preference. The Secretary of State appeared to firm up his view that Daresbury should be chosen in his many comments to the Select Committee on Science and Technology. He said:
This was always going to be a decision (in terms of the location) that was going to be taken by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The fact that the matter has been taken out of his hands and No. 10 has made the decision is of concern not only on this issue, but to future decision making.
I hope that the Minister will give us a substantive reply to the point to which I keep returning: are the Government starting to determine where scientific clusters will be located in the United Kingdom? The Secretary of State told the Select Committee:
One of the reasons why I indicated in my letter of 1 November that I thought Daresbury was the preferred site was that there was expertise that already existed in relation to the synchrotron at Daresbury and there must be a risk of disruption and of losing people if there is a decision to locate somewhere else.
On scientific grounds as well as on regional ones that I know are important to hon. Members in this Chamber, the Secretary of State seemed to have been persuaded that that would be the decision. However, Lord Sainsbury of Turville outlined his decision in a press release on 13 March. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) suggested, Lord Sainsbury referred to additional money that he would put into the northwest as a sort of compensation, stating:
I have asked Dr Bruce Smith to chair a team to review the options for capitalising on the strengths of the science base in the North West, for example in the biomedical sciences, looking at how we might exploit Manchester's "health corridor", and Daresbury's strength in instrumentation.
That is all well and good, but do the Government intend, from the centre, to determine the location of scientific clusters? Are they looking for where organic growth in certain disciplines occurs, and will they therefore relate future decision making and policy around the clusters, however small? I believe that many people would like an explanation about that. It is not sufficient to toss a bit of money somewhere as a short compensation policy. If the Government intend to establish scientific clusters around the country, they must have an overall national strategy; an ad hoc, regional approach is not good and will not serve the purpose.
66WH
We would welcome a much broader debate on the subject, so that we can uncover why the case was taken from the Department of Trade and Industry and the decision made in Downing street, and on the Government's policy—I hope that there is a policy, because it would be outrageous to make such decisions without an overall strategic view—on clustering and the promotion of specialisms throughout the UK.
10.45 am
The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). It is evident from the speech of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) that the Conservatives wish to engage in one of their favourite sports: running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. I am sure that she will accept that the energy and drive in the campaign for Daresbury came from Labour Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who for obvious reasons has had to work behind the scenes, and has done so tirelessly. It is important to recognise the work done by my hon. Friends in the north-west on the issue.
Mr. Brady: I pointed that out myself. It is important that we recognise that hon. Members from all parties in the north-west share that point of view. There are strong feelings about the issue in the north-west and all hon. Members who sought to put the case should get the credit.
Mr. Johnson: The fact that my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury is not replying to the debate was remarked on; around 400 years of constitutional history would crumble if a Member of the other place even attempted to walk into Westminster Hall.
The siting of the new synchrotron has been a topic of enormous interest and concern over the past few weeks. The debate has enabled some issues to be fully aired. While I appreciate the huge disappointment of hon. Members in the north-west, it is important to stress that the decision to build a new synchrotron in the UK is good news for the future of British science. It is a major long-term investment in our infrastructure, costing approximately £200 million in capital and £500 million in total over the next 25 years. It represents the largest single investment in science for more than a decade. The regional issues are of course a subject of great debate and tension, but the issue is a national one and it is good news for the UK.
Our aim is to build the best possible facility for synchrotron users and create an environment in which we can stay at the forefront of global research in important scientific fields, such as our increasing knowledge of the human genome—the building block of all life—biotechnology, development of new drugs, new plastics, textiles and electronic materials. The partnership that we have secured with the French and the Wellcome Trust is the best way of achieving a facility that has the leading-edge capability that current and future synchrotron users will demand. By working together, we can build a larger and more specified

67WH
machine than we could afford by ourselves. We also bring in the technical expertise of our partners to help to design and develop the best possible machines.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Johnson: I will if I get time at the end, as long as I have answered all the important points raised in the debate.
This is the first time that the UK has hosted such a collaborative international scientific facility. The French Government have shown great commitment to the project, cancelling plans for their own third generation synchrotron, Soleil, in order to join us. No evidence suggests that those plans have changed. Indeed, the French Goverenment will meet the other partners next week. Officials have assured us that the change in the French Government has not affected the project.
The factors involved in choosing the site made the decision difficult. We are fortunate in the United Kingdom in that we have two locations, Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton laboratory, which both offered viable sites for the new synchrotron. Indeed, the Select Committee on Science and Technology concluded that it had no preference for either site and that both sites were equally acceptable. We therefore faced a dilemma. The decision might not have taken so long had the competition from both sites been less than equal. It has been a difficult decision. The key criterion in selecting the site was what would be best for UK science, bearing in mind the fact that the facility is designed to last for the next generation—at least 25 years. In addition, the project is a partnership, which, like all partnerships, involves negotiation and compromise. Although we had to take into account our partners' views, they are by no means the only reason why we reached that conclusion.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Johnson: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
We consulted users three times in the past 15 months, as it is they who will ultimately carry out research on the machine. They concluded that they require a world-class machine for a wide range of structural science research in the UK. Although they want a high-quality machine, ultimately the focus must be on the quality of science that the machine enables.
Demand was expressed for a strong science culture on the site and an environment in which researchers from different scientific disciplines could work closely together. On the basis of our officials' advice, the Government decided that that can best be achieved at Rutherford Appleton laboratory, which already has other major facilities using, for example, neutrons, lasers and nuclear magnetic resonance. In addition, we need to continue to invest in support technologies using, for example, low temperatures, vacuum technology and high magnetic fields, which can be shared among the different facilities on the site.
Co-location at Rutherford Appleton laboratory will prevent duplication of activity and encourage more efficient use of funds. Both our partners favoured the
68WH
Rutherford Appleton site, and as part of a partnership we had to take their views into account. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West mentioned a comment made on Radio 4 by an attach?t the French embassy that was entirely refuted a few days later in a letter to The Guardian from the French ambassador. Our French partners expressed a clear preference for Rutherford Appleton.
The Government's final decision was based on a wide range of information provided by consultants and synchrotron users. The official Opposition have criticised the Government and in particular my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who would plead guilty to the charge of carefully considering and analysing Daresbury's bid. He considered many other factors in addition to the scientific case before reaching his decision. It is right and proper for him to have undertaken such thorough analysis.
We held three consultations with synchrotron users, in January, May and December 1999. The final review was held at the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Office of Science and Technology contracted ADD Consultants in June 1999 to carry out an investment appraisal of options for the site of the proposed new synchrotron radiation facility. ADD Consultants is an independent company that provides technical consultancy and training services.
The Office of Science and Technology contracted Allott and Lomax to carry out the survey of both the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton sites in December 1999. Allott and Lomax is an independent engineering consultancy based in Manchester. The Wellcome Trust employed its own firm of consulting engineers to survey both sites.
The studies showed that both sites could accommodate the new synchrotron physically and would obtain planning permission. The financial appraisal showed that Rutherford Appleton was marginally favourable. The consultation with users about the location issues showed that physicists using synchrotrons believed that there were advantages in locating the new one alongside the Isis neutron source.
Mrs. Browning: In the Science and Technology Committee, the Secretary of State said:
in the survey that we conducted before Christmas what was particularly interesting was that the life scientists, who are the ones who are likely to use the new synchrotron perhaps more than the physical scientists, did not feel strongly about its location alongside ISIS at all.
Why did he change his view?
Mr. Johnson: In a process of analysis and in carrying out the consultation that he commissioned in December, my right hon. Friend obviously had due regard to all the evidence. We went back over several consultation periods precisely because of what the hon. Lady has mentioned. However, while both Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton laboratories offered excellent sites, Rutherford Appleton was preferred for four key reasons. They were: first, the potential for operational, technical and scientific synergy between the new synchrotron and the other facilities on the site—especially Isis; secondly, the potential to produce a world-class international research centre, drawing

69WH
together a range of scientific and engineering disciplines; thirdly, the sharing of many technical functions, such as accelerated design, magnets, pulse powers and support functions including security, safety and administration; and finally, its proximity to the biosciences expertise at Oxford university, the medical research council units, including the mouse genome centre on the adjacent Harwell site, and the national nuclear magnetic resonance centre. The basis for the decision was nothing but what would be best for British science. It was a difficult decision, but the Government believe it was correct, and it is, as was said in the debate, irreversible.
Many hon. Members raised questions about the future of Daresbury laboratory and the north-west, whose staff made a crucial contribution to the existing UK synchrotron source, the SRS. The design, construction and commissioning of the new synchrotron project will take about six years to complete. The current synchrotron source at Daresbury will continue to operate during and beyond that period, giving, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) said, a period of light rather than dark. United Kingdom users will thus have continuous access to X-rays and instrumentation. The research councils are currently investing £5 million in new beam lines, so that service will be maintained at the highest level during that period. It is therefore anticipated that most of the current staff will remain employed at the Daresbury laboratory to support its effective operation. We also plan to use the expertise at Daresbury in many aspects of the new synchrotron project and so will take full advantage of the knowledge and skills built up there over many years. The very important work on breast cancer mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South is one reason for our belief that Daresbury has a viable future.
We shall not rush into decisions on Daresbury's longer-term future. It will be one of the topics considered in the review of the north-west science base announced by my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury on 13 March and due to report by the end of September. The first meeting was held yesterday. The review will consider how best to capitalise on the skilled people and assets of Daresbury and will also consult the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils.
The strengths of the north-west are built on its chemical, pharmaceutical, aerospace and nuclear industries, which deliver 18 per cent. of UK manufacturing output. The Government will contribute £25 million to the work of the task force and will look to strengthen further the science base in the north-west by contributing to the funding of a feasibility study to consider the potential for a biotechnology core technology facility worth up to £25 million—a further £25 million for the north-west. The Government are extremely concerned about the impact on Daresbury and the north-west and—
Mr. Eddie O'Hara: Order. We must proceed to the next debate.

Bank Branch Closures
11 am
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate an issue that is of great concern throughout the country, for reasons that are not difficult to see. During the past 10 years, more than 4,000 bank branches have closed, and it is predicted that another 4,000 will close in the next five years if the banks do not change their approach. We are heading fast towards 172 BC—Barclays closure day, on 7 April, when it plans to axe 172 branches at a stroke.
Two of those branches are in my constituency. Regarding the one at Oulton Broad, I have advised my constituents to take the advice given by my hon. Friend the Minister a couple of weeks ago and vote with their feet, because there are still a couple of other banks in that community. In the case of the second proposed closure, in the Kirkley area of south Lowestoft, my constituents are unable to follow that advice because Barclays is the last bank in south Lowestoft. I should add that Lowestoft, a town with a population of 65,000, is cut in two by a river and joined only by a lift-up bridge, so it has two distinct communities, but Barclays has not recognised that because it does not consider such matters of detail in any community.
That part of Lowestoft is a single regeneration budget area, and the Government and other public bodies are contributing £20 million of public money, together with much hard work on the ground, to regenerate the area. By definition, a single regeneration budget area has a high proportion of vulnerable people, including elderly people. In addition, it has high unemployment, poverty and poor health. However, the area is also a commercial area. Many small shops line the A12 as it runs into Lowestoft, and there are plenty of other small businesses. Those shops are struggling, but they are hanging on because their proprietors believe in the regeneration process and can see signs of progress in their community, three years into a seven-year programme, the object of which is to create jobs, impove housing conditions and enhance the built environment.
Barclays is walking away and abandoning the area, as it is abandoning other parts of the country. It is saying, in effect, that it does not believe that regeneration will work, or that it does not care whether it works. Its decision to move out of the area will undermine confidence in the regeneration process and in that part of Lowestoft. Its departure will also present practical difficulties for small businesses. It will require shopkeepers, who often work on their own, to travel further to do their banking, and to take a higher security risk or incur extra costs in delivering their takings to the bank.
I said that Barclays was walking away, but it would be more accurate to say that it is running away, because it has given its loyal customers only a few weeks' notice that it is closing their bank. That is a kick in the teeth for those customers and the community in which the bank is situated. Barclays is leaving elderly and disabled people to fend for themselves. What thought does Barclays have for Mr. Philip Baldry of Southwell road, Lowestoft? Mr. Baldry is blind and his dog is specially trained to guide him to that bank. What does Mr. Baldry do now?

71WH
The reaction of the community is strong. People are appalled by Barclays' actions. The local paper, the Lowestoft Journal, has run a campaign, the like of which I have never seen before. In an unprecedented move, the editor put his own letter on the front page. Mr. Ernie Skepelhorn, who lives in the area, has organised a petition, which must be the easiest one ever compiled because people are queueing up to sign it.
Like other hon. Members, I received a letter from Barclays Group public affairs. It began by explaining that it had decided what to do. There was no question of consultation. How would Barclays react if the Government conducted their business in that way? It would want to be consulted.
I asked a Barclays manager to come to Lowestoft. When he arrived, I asked what criteria were used for closing branches. It was clear that they were national, narrow and financial. I asked whether a local appraisal had been made of branches. He said yes, but did not have the details with him. It was obvious that the decisions were taken simply on the basis of maps and head office statistics; they show a narrow focus and a centralised approach. The manager said that an automatic telling machine might be provided—which, of course, would come with the charges that Barclays would like to impose—or that people could use a supermarket or Marks and Spencer, which does not exist in the area. He refused to talk to the media or local people. I had to cajole him even to receive the petition. But now I know why, and I know that Barclays is guilty of a cynical disregard of its customers.
When the manager left, I saw a pile of documents in my car that belonged to him. I could not resist looking at them.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Must be a trainee Whip.
Mr. Blizzard: This is not a laughing matter.
I found a closure kit on a project called Closure 2000. It included an inaccurate local briefing document, which said that my area had just received objective 2 European funding for a future programme. There was no mention of the SRB programme, which has been under way for two or three years. The briefing told the manager that
Bob Blizzard MP is likely to argue that he and the local council [please note—Mr. Blizzard is leader of the local council].
I know that one or two hon. Members retain their seats on councils, but I do not know of one who is the leader of a council. I gave that up in 1997 when I entered the House of Commons. Is that the quality of information on which Barclays bases such decisions? The briefing document did, however, admit that branch closure sends out a negative message about the economic viability of an area. That is my case.
The papers included a branch closure staff guidance pack. It contained some gems. It told staff:
We strongly recommend that you role play some of the more difficult questions with your colleagues before using them in a live situation … Where it is perceived that hotspots are developing the ARM should advise Head Office at the earliest possible stage.
Well, Lowestoft is certainly a hotspot, and I bet that it is not the only one.
The document described strategies for staff to dissuade customers from complaining to their Member of Parliament or starting a petition. They have not been very successful. It said:
72WH
If a customer says that they are going to contact the local media—do not make any comment.
The guidance pack posed questions, including
Is there a possibility of the branch remaining open?
to which the answer was "No." There was, however, a chink of light because it said:
This decision is unlikely to be changed.
I stress the word "unlikely". To the question,
Why weren't we consulted?
staff were to respond:
This is a business decision.
My visitor from Barclays said that he would pass on my message, but closure was not his decision. I meet more Barclays executives on Monday, but not the man who will take the decision on closure. I shall ask them to work with the Government in the regeneration process. If the SRB works, there will be increased business for the branch. Shops will thrive and there will be more small businesses, tourists and employed local people. I shall ask Barclays to put the regeneration programme to the test. It should grant a stay of execution and give the SRB a chance. It should sit down and discuss with the Government how a bank can be retained in this fragile regeneration and rebuilding process, to avoid damaging confidence.
There should be a breathing space for other solutions to be examined. How about a shared bank? Different utility companies seem able to share the same pipe or cable these days, so why cannot the banks share? Currently, they cannot share even an automatic telling machine without charging each other's customers. Am I asking too much of the banks in requesting that they take a wider view of social responsibility and consider branches in the context of local communities? It is not as though banks such as Barclays cannot afford to do so. Two weeks ago, Don Cruickshank told us that the banks are making excess profits of about £5 billion a year, and Barclays is part of that.
Barclays is currently running an advertising campaign and is spending millions of pounds on television. One cannot open a daily newspaper without seeing a huge advertisement. I am told that a double page in The Times costs £80,000 a go. The advertisement tells us how big the company is, and yet it is downsizing its branch network. We are also told that it is undertaking the biggest educational sponsorship scheme in the United Kingdom, which illustrates its support for communities. In light of what is actually being done to communities, that is a public relations stunt. Real community support would consist of keeping branches such as that in south Lowestoft open. That is support that counts.
For too long, the banks in this country have had a culture that is not customer focused. Do hon. Members remember the battle to get banks to open on Saturday mornings? Do they remember when banks used to close at 3 o'clock in the afternoon? The current circumstances are no better and, as very few large banks remain, they have unreasonable power in the market.
The banks say that the current network of branches is not viable, but comparisons with mainland Europe produce some very interesting numbers. I am told that there are 170 branches per million people in this country. If building societies are included, there are 260

73WH
branches per million people. However, there are 400 branches per million people in Italy, 600 branches per million people in Germany and 900 branches per million people in Spain.
I was pleased last week when the Chancellor signalled his intention to use the Don Cruickshank report. He invited the Post Office and the banks to work together to offer basic banking services to all. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to challenge Barclays and other banks to reconsider closures in regeneration areas. SRB is a specific and definable criterion, and I dare say that other hon. Members will find other criteria. Will my hon. Friend join me in asking Barclays to halt the immediate closure of such branches? Will he insist that it meets representatives of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to discuss the impact of local branches in regeneration processes and how to avoid the damaging of confidence and the imposition of further burdens on small businesses? Those results would definitely follow if the local branches closed.
I am making a practical suggestion. Regeneration is about tackling serious problems and is a vital process in which the giant banks should play a serious and responsible part. At a time when we know that the banks are making excess profits, we must not let them get away with such damaging closures. If they will not co-operate, we will have to consider measures such as regulation or a windfall tax. That might focus their outlook and make them ask whether they are big enough to change their minds.
11.13 am
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) for bringing forward this matter for debate. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he presented his case and congratulate him on having secured the debate. All hon. Members will be happy to use the disclosures from the back seat of his car that he has revealed to us. His arguments apply not only to parts of East Anglia that are covered by regeneration programmes but to those that are not. The debate gives East Anglian Members the chance to express some of the outrage felt locally about Barclays bank branch closures. In my constituency, where the East Harling and Feltwell branches are to close, the issue is regarded as one more nail in the coffin of rural life. People in rural areas feel that they are becoming among the most disadvantaged in society.
Despite the handy role-play advice that the hon. Member for Waveney disclosed was given to Barclays bank employees, the bank must have been taken by surprise by the fury and intensity of the local reaction. There was a sit-in at Terrington St. Clement, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). Uniquely, it was organised by people over the age of 70. Cheese sandwiches were provided through the bank's letter-box. It lasted five hours and was lovingly chronicled in our local media, including the Eastern Daily Press. Afterwards, bank employees had to have time off for the stress imposed on them by the 70-year-old participants. That must have been one of the "hotspots" referred to by the hon. Member for Waveney in his excellent speech.
74WH
We have seen an array of banners at Brundall, which I believe is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). We have seen pickets in Lincolnshire. In my constituency, we have had much protest, furious letters and complaints about the way in which Barclays has announced its proposals for the branches.
It should be remembered that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk and the hon. Member for Waveney will know, Barclays is a bank that has generations, and, indeed, centuries of connections with East Anglia and, in particular, with Norfolk. For many Norfolk people, Barclays is their bank, certainly for those above a certain age.
My constituent, Mr. Dudley Stammers of East Harling, has banked with Barclays at the branch in East Harling, as did his father, his grandfather and his great-grandfather through the generations. The only information that he was given was a leaflet stuffed into his hand as he left the bank a couple of weeks ago. I am extremely surprised that bank employees have apparently been given advice on handling the situation. All that one might say is that it was not extremely successful.
We all know that banks are commercial organisations and that, increasingly, people will use cashpoint machines. Interestingly, this week the banks changed their mind regarding charges for the use of the machines. We know that, increasingly, people will use telephone banking and the internet. However, for many, those are not an option. For people running small local businesses grouped around isolated rural communities, there is no time to travel to lodge cash with a bank some distance away. With falling numbers of police, there are also understandable security fears when people must take large sums back and forth in their car.
Parents at home with their children might like the opportunity to go to a bank in a nearby town but do not have the time. People at work and, especially, the elderly do not have the opportunity to bank elsewhere. Increasingly, those for whom the price of petrol—it is now £4 a gallon—has become an intolerable burden must think once, twice or three times before they get in the car to go to the nearest market town to do their banking.
As I said, the role of Barclays bank in Norfolk has always been pretty special. As the hon. Member for Waveney pointed out, the bank would still like the public to believe that it provides a special service and that it wishes to lavish care on its customers. We know also, from Barclays' annual report, that this year £200 million in bonuses has been paid to top executives.
It is interesting to note that Barclays can spend large sums to persuade the public of its enthusiasm for local businesses and to demonstrate the role of banking in regenerating communities or keeping them going, yet still pull the rug from under them. It must be obvious that an active bank branch brings business to a community, even a small one, because people who use the bank will spend money and undertake other business in the community. The closure of a branch pulls the plug on the economic activities of an area.
At the moment, rural people are disadvantaged. Many local post offices are under threat. People in Norfolk face council tax increases that are three times

75WH
the rate of inflation. Agriculture is in its worst straits since the 1930s. Petrol now costs £4 a gallon and people in rural areas regularly face a 15-mile round trip to visit the doctor. We can do without a well known bank pulling the rug out from under us like that.
How much more heartening it would have been if the hon. Member for Waveney had been able to find in the filched material that was left in his car a clue that the bank wanted to consider other ways of providing a service. Instead, it contains a list of instructions on how to fob off concerned and genuine questions of the sort posed by the hon. Gentleman. How much better it would have been if Barclays had spent a moment considering how it might co-operate with local post offices and with other rural regeneration schemes instead of saying no when asked whether it was going to think again about closure. I believe that it should think again.
11.22 am
Mr. Martin Salter: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on securing the debate and on the strident efforts that he has made on behalf of his constituents to halt the disgraceful tide of closures announced by Barclays. Other hon. Members who represent constituencies in the region have also spoken out against the closures.
It was somewhat ironic to hear the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) speak about pickets and sit-ins. Politics has indeed turned on its head if Conservative Members are found to be supporting such welcome direct action. We may have lessons to learn from one another.
The debate is timely. Only yesterday, we launched the all-party group on banking. I was pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and many other hon. Members from across the political spectrum were present to give their unstinting support to resisting the tide of financial exclusion that threatens to engulf many communities, not only in rural areas but in urban and small, deprived inner-city communities.
Undoubtedly, of all the major national banks, Barclays is the most unresponsive to both public and political pressure. It is clear that Barclays intends to proceed with the closure of 172 branches, despite the fact that there is almost unprecedented political activity in the House over the matter. Some 300 Members of Parliament have signed early-day motions condemning bank closures generally and Barclays' activities in particular. As I speak, there are about 20 early-day motions on the Order Paper.
The all-party parliamentary group on banking exists not to legislate but to work together to explore options and bring pressure to bear on the banking industry to try to make it more accountable and more responsive to customers' needs. The present tide of closures is taking place at a time when the banks are securing record profits. Last year alone, the United Kingdom banking industry made a net profit of £20 billion. Paradoxically, profits are going through the roof while the branch networking is systematically butchered.
Many solutions need to be explored. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, there is a prospect of banks being regulated if they do not put
76WH
their house in order and show similar concern for customers as for shareholders. Perhaps the Minister will be able to hold out such a prospect when he replies. Other options have been outlined today and in other debates. If only the big four banks would agree to talk to one another. At the moment, there is a sort of race not to be the last bank left in any town or village, because it is obvious that the last bank to close will take the flak from local communities and their democratically elected representatives. If a community is not large enough in major banks' terms to sustain four branches, what would be wrong with their sharing facilities and processing one another's customers, at least leaving those communities some access to basic banking services?
Mr. Harry Barnes: Although the current flak is, rightly, being directed at Barclays, the other high street banks that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned are also deeply into this game. Even after Barclay's current closure programme is completed, NatWest and Lloyds TSB will have closed still more branches since the 1990s. The campaign should be directed fully at the four major banks and the problems that they are creating generally, although one solution would be for them to get together to provide facilities in communities.
Mr. Salter: My hon. Friend makes a telling, accurate point. We are singling out Barclays for our vitriol today but it could easily be sprayed around at all the big four banks and at the United Kingdom banking sector in general. However, one bit of good news has just come to light. Following the takeover of NatWest by the Royal Bank of Scotland, the proposed closure of 250 to 300 banks has been put on hold. I understand that that decision was taken as recently as yesterday. Sixty fairly well advanced closures will go ahead but 140 to 190 branches have been reprieved. How long this will last remains to be seen.
The other purpose of the campaign is to provide not only a strong voice in Parliament for local communities that are threatened with financial exclusion but a strong voice for customers, whom the major banks singularly ignore in their relentless search for even greater, more obscene profits.
Another ray of light—at present there are only rays—is the excellent report by Don Cruickshank, the Treasury adviser, who began an inquiry into financial exclusion. Hon. Members need to study some of the report's recommendations to ensure that it does not gather dust in Treasury filing cabinets or elsewhere. I look forward to working with other hon. Members to that end.
The most likely solution, with which I hope the Minister will deal in his response, is to use the 19,000-strong post office network. It has shrunk by 1 per cent. over the past few years and we cannot turn back the clock: modernisation will take place. Automated credit transfer will have an effect on the post office network and it is pointless for Labour Back Benchers to deny it, but other options are available to strengthen the Post Office.
The Post Office is perhaps the best loved of British institutions. We need to get the banks talking to each other and to be responsive to public and political

77WH
pressure. That could produce capital investment in all our major post offices and sub-post offices, which could provide at least basic banking services to our constituents who want access to their own money.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Is it not another bitter irony in the saga of Barclays' total disregard for its customers that it engaged in an experimental project in Cornwall to establish whether post offices could take over some of the banking services denied to its customers, yet did not wait for the outcome of the experiment before engaging in what my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney discovered has been defined as Closure 2000? That provides another example of Barclays' total failure to deliver to some of their most loyal customers.
Mr. Salter: Barclays is guilty of the worst cynicism. I am sure that Cornwall was picked for the pilot project because it was furthest from the London-based media.
Credit unions have been promoted as social banks in deprived communities such as Salford, yet those experiments, worthy as they are, do not stop for a moment the advance of the savage closure programmes. We must make these pilot schemes more than regional experiments and place them at the top of the agenda. It is our role as parliamentarians not only to raise issues but to propose solutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk certainly touched on possible solutions in the offing.
Many groups are affected by bank closure, and the elderly and people on fixed incomes are the worst affected. I am pleased that Help the Aged has joined forces with the campaign for commuity banking services and the new all-party group to add its voice to the outcry against the tide of financial exclusion.
I wish to end by telling a story about my constituency to illustrate how, just once, we managed to force a major national bank to back down and listen to people, especially the elderly. Last spring, rebellion was in the air in Reading, West. It is a fairly prosperous constituency at the heart of middle England. A major national institution had incensed a wide coalition comprising small business men and women, jobbing builders, the elderly, the blind and the disabled—in fact, just about everyone who does not rely exclusively on cash machines for all their financial transactions. I am talking, of course, about Lloyds TSB—the bank that used to like to say yes.
Lloyds TSB faced a storm of protest when it announced the closure of the only bank left in the village of Theale, just outside Reading. To add insult to injury, the full automation of two further district branches and the partial automation of its central Reading branch were proposed. It was part of an ill-fated national pilot scheme to see whether bank customers were ready to deal solely with robots rather than people. My constituents' reaction was hostile, to say the least. I was proud to spearhead a campaign aimed at sinking that pilot project once and for all. I had no doubt that if Lloyds TSB got away with it in Reading, wholesale automation would have been introduced in thousands of other communities throughout the country. It was a nasty glimpse into the future.
78WH
Reading is the capital of the Thames valley, is at the cutting edge of e-commerce and is probably the last place to wish to resist progress. Yet for all the advance of internet banking and the increased use of ATMs, how on earth is a blind person supposed to use a fully automated bank? What use is a cash machine that will issue only £200 a day to a jobbing builder who needs money to pay labourers and buy materials? What about the shopkeeper who loses a day's interest on deposits? Hon. Members may be interested to learn that it takes four days for a robot to process a cheque and three days for a human being. So much for progress!
There are many elderly people in my constituency who simply do not trust putting their hard-earned savings into a hole in the wall—and why on earth should they? I like campaigning—it is one of the reaons why I am in politics—but seldom have I had as much pleasure as I have had in directing the protests and anger of my constituents at the arrogant Lloyds TSB executives who were seeking to use them as guinea pigs in their constant search for even greater profits.
At times, the big four banks seem almost oblivious to the terrible publicity that they generate for themselves by pursuing their policies of branch closure, cash machine charges and excessive profiteering, yet just this once we forced them to back down. I do not know whether it was the horror of being picketed by scores of blind and disabled people on national television. Perhaps it was having their nice little House of Commons summer reception gatecrashed by a particularly belligerent MP and his staff. Was it the threat of being exposed for breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? Whatever it was, I am pleased to report that the Lloyds TSB executives eventually caved in and cashiers were reinstated in Reading. I hope that the efforts of hon. Members and others working together will force the banks to see sense and give communities and their customers the level of attention that they currently give to their shareholders.
11.36 am
Mr. Keith Simpson: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on securing this Adjournment debate. I welcome the fine contributions by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). Indeed, it is strange to see so many of us who are roughly of the same generation and who have at times been on different sides. I look at the Minister: 30 years ago, we stood on different sides of a barricade. I suspect that, on this occasion, we are all on the same side.
Like other hon. Members, I wish to bring to the attention of the Chamber the deep sense of outrage in my constituency about the closure of two Barclays bank branches at Reepham and Brundall. I have had campaigns in the past: people have written to me about a wide range of issues that have upset them, such as the national health service and hunting, whether for or against, but seldom have I heard such genuine, deep anger. It has been expressed not only by the people in those two communities, but by people throughout my constituency, including those who can easily find alternative means of banking.
The protests that I have received have not been in the Luddite tradition of refusing to face up to progress. Nearly everyone recognises that it is a highly

79WH
competitive world and that the banks must adapt to new technology of one kind or another. However, it seems to many people that Barclays has got it wrong. It may be taking the brunt of the blame for decisions also taken by the other banks, but in this case it has shown a degree of crass stupidity that only a political party in terminal decline can ever show. At different stages the Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties have all witnessed that.
As the hon. Member for Waveney pointed out, the debate has focused on the effect of Government regeneration policies on bank branch closures. I want to say at the outset that in Norfolk, we feel out on a limb. We feel neglected, and there is a danger that the Government's well-intentioned policies of regeneration may be seen by many people in Norfolk as policies of degeneration, which will cause things to get worse. The closure of branches by Barclays must be seen in the context of many other things that have happened to rural communities such as those in Norfolk in the past decade, and which have accelerated during the past three years.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk spoke about the crisis facing farming. There is a real crisis in my constituency. One need only see the pig farmers' picket a few yards from the Room.
As hon. Members have said, we must bear in mind the closure of sub-post offices. The Government's decision in May 1999 to scrap the previous Government's Horizon project for paying benefit using swipe cards will have a major impact on post offices. Forty per cent. of rural sub-post offices' income comes from benefit payments. Many rural post offices will close as a result of that decision. As hon. Members know, in many communities the post office effectively subsidises the village shop. Between 1992 and 1997, 99 sub-post offices were closing annually. Now, 235 are closing every year. On 5 February, the Eastern Daily Press reported that more than 20 village post offices in Norfolk and Suffolk had shut in the past 12 months.
Hon. Members' worthy proposals on the alternative of combining banking facilities and sub-post offices may not be workable. So many sub-post offices may close while we are trying to achieve that, that communities such as Reepham and Brundall will end up without a bank or sub-post office.
Mrs. Shephard: Does my hon. Friend accept that there could have been a means of saving some rural post offices, had more thought been given to Barclays' operation in such matters? A partnership might have been formed that would have given post offices an additional function. That could have saved some post offices, although it is undeniable that many have closed.
Mr. Simpson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Once again, we confront the worst kind of short-termism.
Mr. Blizzard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if postmasters, newspapers and pensioner groups keep saying that post offices are going to close, that will undermine confidence in post offices and cause some
80WH
customers to abandon them in favour of a bank? Should we not encourage people to use post offices to stop them closing?
Mr. Simpson; I fully endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. Unfortunately, however, more and more sub-post offices in my constituency are closing. Indeed, this Friday I am attending a meeting about one that is under threat.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said, Barclays' decision has provoked outrage in Norfolk. My constituents in Reepham and Brundall have contacted me by letter and telephone. They are extremely angry that the decision will be implemented—as the hon. Member for Waveney said—on 7 April, whatever anyone says. Barclays is in, "I hear what you say" mode, which is a polite way of saying, "I don't give a damn what you say."
Consultation has been lacking and there is genuine fury that the announcement has, unfortunately for Barclays, come at a time when the bank's profits have increased by 30 per cent. to £2.5 million. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said, the directors have had a small windfall. A massive new advertising campaign with a famous British actor appearing—presumably for a large fee—to say how wellBarclays is doing rubs salt into the wound. Another bank claimed that it was a listening bank. At least Barclays has spared us that; if it took such a line, it would be lynched.
What will the closures of the branches of Barclays in Reepham and Brundall mean to those communities? I live in Reepham, a market town of about 4,000 inhabitants which is used by many in surrounding villages. Individual customers and local family businesses bank there. The nearest Barclays bank is 8 miles away in Aylsham, constituting a round trip of 16 miles. So there is an immediate impact on many individuals. Mrs. Joyce Cox, secretary of the Reepham Patient Care Fund, told me that she wrote to Barclays' branch manager in Aylsham saying that the fund would have to use its small coach to bring disabled customers to it. She wondered whether Barclays would make a small contribution to the cost of the extra petrol. In reply, she received a letter saying, effectively, "I hear what you say."
Brian Robertson, our local butcher, has said that the closure will affect the way in which local businesses bank their cash, not only because of the disruption caused by taking money to another bank but because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said, they feel insecure and are worried about increasing instances of robbery and muggings.
The impact on Brundall, a large village to the east of Norwich on the River Wensum, will be similar but with a particular degradation of tourism. The bank offers a service for holidaymakers, and local people, such as David Green and Kiki Angelbath, fear that the closure will have a detrimental effect. The combination of bank branch closures and the threat to sub-post offices—a point made by George Johnson in Reepham—will produce degeneration, not regeneration, in rural communities.
I want to emphasise a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk. It is indeed a deep irony that Barclays bank has a direct Norfolk

81WH
connection, with the families of the Barclays, the Gurneys and the Buxtons. They were 18th-century Quakers who went into banking not only for commercial reasons and to make a profit, but to provide a service for the farming community, based on deep Christian beliefs. They had a commitment to social welfare.
The plea of my constituents in Reepham and Brundall, expressed by the vicar of Reepham, the Rev. Michael Patison, is not that Barclays should be an extension of the welfare state, but that it should reconsider its decision to close its branches in Reepham and Brundall and in other constituencies. The banks should consider the strong cross-party feeling shown in this debate and realise that it may affect the future of banking and the legislation that may be introduced.
11.46 am
Ms Glenda Jackson: I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) for securing this Adjournment debate. As in the previous, shorter Adjournment debate on this subject, every hon. Member who has spoken has adduced a litany of experience on the serious impact that the proposed closure of bank branches by Barclays will have on our constituents.
Mine is not a rural constituency, but the proposed closure of the Hampstead Heath branch of Barclays will have a serious impact on an area where people have prided themselves on managing to maintain a strong sense of community and have worked extremely hard to maintain the village atmosphere. We have many small shops that are entirely dependent on Barclays; it is the only bank in that part of my constituency.
Although the Hampstead Heath branch may not seem a million miles away from the branch in Hampstead village, the latter is at the top of an extremely steep hill. Although the distance is not far, some of those Barclays customers who will be most strongly, even doubly, affected find it extremely difficult to reach. They have been Barclays customers all their life and have shown their loyalty. They are now pensioners, and the bank that they have entrusted with their savings, which they believed would deliver a high-quality service, is now betraying them. I do not think that that choice of word is too extreme.
The proposed closure will also impact strongly on all the small businesses in the area, because they are largely based on cash transactions. Barclays argues that going on-line will solve their problems and that, in future, the technology will be such that hole-in-the-wall machines will be able to take cash as well as provide it, but they will not be able to deliver change, which is intrinsic to the businesses about which I am speaking. Hon. Members also mentioned the perceived rise in the potential for crime, which is of great concern to my constituents. To most people in this Room, the withdrawal of a small amount of money may not seem fraught with the potential for danger, but for pensioners that small transaction involves a large amount of money. They are genuinely afraid of being able to withdraw cash only from a hole in the wall.
I was one of several hon. Members who recently
82WH
attended a meeting in the House with the directors of Barclays bank. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said, their policy seems to be, "We hear you, but we are not listening to what you say to us." The suggestion that there is a potential, if not for increased crime then for an increased fear of crime, was pooh-poohed by the directors, who said that they would introduce closed circuit television cameras in the hotspots. How many attacks must be carried out before the directors of Barclays bank, who seem to have closed their ears to what their customers tell them, introduce the type of security about which they were speaking?
Many hon. Members mentioned degeneration. If the small businesses in my constituency are denied a full range of banking services, it will affect their customers. Most people in this day and age do not have the time to fly like butterflies between venues to different services; there are not enough hours in the day for them to do so. If the bank goes, the customers will move to another bank and spend their money in other shops and cafés and on other services. That will lead to degeneration, which happens in urban areas, too. Degeneration in rural areas was described in graphic detail, and urban areas, too, are desperate for regeneration. Changes are being made, and small and medium-sized businesses are the major job creators in my constituency.
The popular perception is that no one in Hampstead and Highgate is less then a millionaire, but nothing could be further from the truth. There are serious and grave areas of major deprivation in my constituency, as there are in all urban constituencies. Barclays' proposals are another serious blow to areas where people have worked extremely hard, giving their time and efforts to retaining the sense of community by caring for one another. They are trying to maintain the principles, mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk, that energised the bank's founders. How far has that bank slipped?
At the meeting with directors of Barclays that I mentioned earlier, hon. Members were told that because of modernisation and the apparent desire of everyone to opt for on-line banking, Barclays would provide a high-quality service to most of its customers—not to all of its customers; certainly not to those who have been most loyal to the bank over the years, but to "most" of its customers. There was no concomitant sentence stating that the charges to those customers who had less than a high-quality service would be reduced.
The Cruickshank report alleges that the banks have vastly inflated profits. "Bankbusters", on television, gives many examples of incompetent high street banks overcharging their customers. I strongly add my voice to requests for the Government to examine high street banking. If banks continue to treat their customers in such a cavalier way, the next step may be to examine regulatory procedures such as those in, for example, the United States of America, which has community regeneration legislation under which banks must make a major regenerative contribution to their customers if they intend to close their high street branches. Mention has been made of the outrage felt by customers about the complete lack of consultation. Customers knew that the branch in my constituency was to close only because of a notice in the window.

83WH
At a meeting with Members of Parliament, Barclays bank directors were categorical that they wanted the closures to take place in six weeks. They said that assistance would be provided to people who have no confidence in, or knowledge of, on-line banking and that additional services would be available for customers with disabilities. I have written to Barclays requesting information about such services—but answer comes there none.
The case that was presented to me about the bank closure in my constituency was based on Barclays saying that customers were leaving the branch and that there was no longer a requirement for counter services. In less than half a day, two of my most active constituents, who have been protesting about the closure, obtained more than 800 signatures from people who wished the branch to be maintained. I hope that the bank will have listened carefully to the contents of this morning's debate, because being a big bank in a big world—the excessive amount that it is spending on advertising has already been mentioned—will be of no value if its excessive activities abroad reduce the potential for jobs and small and medium enterprises to flourish. Or is that how Barclays wants the future to be? Does it want to be a big bank everywhere except the United Kingdom?
11.56 am
Mr. Harry Barnes: I must be mellowing in my old age, because I have not advocated direct action since the days of the poll tax. It was always non-violent direct action that I supported, but given the contributions from some surprising quarters this morning, perhaps I need to reassess my position on bank closures. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) claimed that we were not luddites. I must say in response that the luddites have had a bad press and I suggest that he reads the work of the historian, E. P. Thompson, who attempted to redress that position. At the time, luddites were faced with horrendous situations.
What is so obnoxious about the bank closure programme is that we have a growing economy. It surprises me how well the economy is doing, because it seems to be expounding third way proposals of which I am not an advocate. Bank activity is growing, yet banks are closing their outlets. The automated credit transfer system will add to the numbers of accounts with which the banks will be dealing and will add to the needs of those who require regular access to local branches.
The problem relates to not only Barclays bank, but major banks throughout the country, some of which will have reduced the number of branches even more drastically than Barclays will have done after 7 April. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said, it would be a good idea for people to sign up to the remaining bank in their community. It is easier nowadays to transfer entire accounts than it has ever been. That is useful, but all the banks in Killamarsh in my constituency have disappeared. Many people moved from their Killamarsh NatWest branch to Barclays, and were devasted when Barclays announced that it was to leave neighbouring Eckington. Many people are affected by inertia and do not bother to transfer, so banks lose out. I faced that problem when TSB moved out of Dronfield, where 1 live, and I retain my Lloyds
84WH
TSB account despite great inconvenience. Lloyds TSB always rings people in the most inconvenient way, asking them to go and discuss their financial position.
There are many problems, but I had better allow other hon. Members to speak.
12 noon
Dr. Vincent Cable: I pass my congratulations to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who has clearly struck a raw nerve in many constituencies, including mine. I shall try to make my contribution different by considering the big picture. It surprises me that people should be taken aback at what is happening.
Since the mid-1980s, there has been a shareholder-value revolution in the banking industry. Banks were once not primarily driven by their shareholders. Barclays was owned and run by old Quaker families with a paternalistic tradition. Until the mid-1980s, many banking outlets were dominated by the mutual movement; the Library shows that that was the case in about 35 per cent. of outlets, but the figure is now less than 15 per cent. Now the banks are primarily driven by the need to add value for their shareholders. That has some positive consequences, not only for the shareholders; large business or private customers with good credit ratings clearly do well out of the more abrasive environment.
That culture also has considerable costs, and I am not referring only to branch closures. One of the biggest costs is borne by the workers. There are far fewer of them, and they have less job security. Amid all the legitimate concerns about Longbridge, where, I think, 9,000 jobs are at risk, we might overlook the fact that approximately 30,000 jobs are at risk from the merger of NatWest with the Royal Bank of Scotland. The jobs are not so concentrated, as they are part of the fallout of the closure of bank branches across the country. There are also implications for pensioners, as those of us who were involved in the battle on the Floor of the House to hold up the Lloyds TSB merger until pensioners were properly looked after will know. Costs are primarily and most visibly being paid in terms of the contraction of the branch network.
Time is short, and the emphasis of our discussion is to try to find constructive solutions, so I shall suggest three approaches. The first is to build on growing competition in banking. We live in a tough, competitive environment, so we should make it work for the bank customers. There is not a great deal of competition in the retail sector at the moment; there appears to be, but customers do not often vote with their feet. Statistics suggest that people are more reluctant to change their bank than to change their husband or wife, so there is a low rate of mobility between banks.
Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman's argument is well constructed. The tenor of what he says is that people have a choice, but my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and the hon. Member for Waveney have said that that is not the case in rural areas.
Dr. Cable: The intervention is right. A problem in rural areas calls for social banking, as I shall mention in

85WH
a moment. People have greater choice than they realise, whether in reaction to poor service or in protest at bank closures. People could and should express that choice. Unfortunately, the Cruickshank report, which was designed to highlight the competitive problem, focused more on wholesale than on retail banking. Some major changes must be made to the portability of accounts to give consumer power, which is needed to make competition work properly. I hope that the Government deal with that.
Let me move to the second point, which was mentioned in the intervention. Competition can go only so far. It cannot address the problems of social or financial exclusion. Only social banking can do that. Although there is a clear, identifiable need for social banking and some effective campaigning for it—led by, among others, the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter)—community banking is a concept that has not yet found a practical expression. Credit unions are an obvious vehicle for that, but although the Government have talked eloquently about them for three years, the proposed reform package is still bottled up in the Treasury. Credit unions are smothered with regulatory controls, which the Treasury has not yet found a way past.
The other fundamental problem, which has been touched on, is the post office network. We are not dealing with a static situation. The decline of the post office network is accelerating. The network has been declining at the rate of about 200 branches a year. In the current financial year, there have been 400 closures, in anticipation of automated credit transfer. Unless a mechanism can be found for replacing the £400 million of income earned by the post office network, that rate of attrition will increase and the most important vehicle for social banking will be lost.
If the post office network is to be sustained it needs an income stream. The hon. Member for Reading, West suggested a windfall tax. That measure has a varied ideological pedigree: I believe that it was Lord Lawson, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, who first introduced one. Another idea that has emerged during the debate is the need for a social banking system to be subsidised; it obviously cannot operate on a profit-making basis. If those two proposals are put together, with the windfall tax providing revenue that would be ring-fenced instead of disappearing into the Treasury, that would provide a mechanism for solving the problem.
My third and final argument concerns regulation. Several hon. Members have said that if the banking system does not change its behaviour, it may need to be regulated to stop the process of bank closures. I would argue that that is necessary, but should not happen in a highly politicised way.
I have suggested a clause in the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is passing through the other place, that would oblige the regulator to ensure that banks comply with the needs of vulnerable customers—the aged, the disabled and those isolated in rural areas. So far the Treasury has not accepted that, although the Department of Trade and Industry has accepted a similar obligation on the utilities. A general power of that kind would impose on banks a requirement of the type in force in the United States, mentioned by the hon.
86WH
Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). It would also provide flexibility because it would not be unduly prescriptive.
Therefore, a combination of intensified competition, the creation of consumer power by enabling people to switch their accounts more readily, a boost in the arm for social banking and some regulatory restraints on the operation of banks, might address the concerns that were so eloquently presented by the hon. Member for Waveney.
12.8 pm
Mr. Tim Loughton: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). It has been an interesting and topical debate. I particularly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work as a private eye during his interview with the local Barclays branch. It would be interesting to see what memorandums are now flying from Barclays central office to branch managers, instructing them not to leave piles of papers on their desk during interviews with Members of Parliament. His remarks about the branch closure staff guidance pack make the procedure seem clinical—a world apart from the image of Capatin Mainwaring and the local bank branch.
It is a topical problem, with all the debate about automated telling machine charges, post office benefits changes and the formation yesterday, which the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) mentioned, of the parliamentary banking group. It is not just a question of BC—Barclays closure—on 7 April. Lloyds TSB has started a closure programme with the recent takeover of the National Westminister bank by the Royal Bank of Scotland. Many more closures of all kinds of branches are likely.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said, the problem is not just rural. Certainly, rural areas are becoming some of the most disadvantaged areas for services. My constituency is largely urban and consists of parts of Worthing. It has a population of 100,000 that is made up of "villages within a town". At present, Worthing has the largest number of Lloyds bank branches per head in England. However, I confidently predict that, within the next couple of years only 50 per cent. will survive.
Barclays has also been closing branches in villages that are part of Worthing where they were the last branch. The closures have been carried out suddenly, with minimal consultation that has caused maximum disruption, particularly in Worthing with its higher than average number of elderly and disabled people. My right hon. Friend mentioned the 70-plus protests in her constituency, the fierce local reaction and the stress that had been caused to staff. She has seen nothing yet. If that tide gets under way, it will not just be 70-year-olds, it will be 80-year-olds, 90-year-olds, and a few 100-year-olds in my constituency. The figures for the past 10 years make interesting reading. Since 1990, 130,000 jobs in high street banks have gone, and as hon. Members have said, 4,000 branches have closed. In September 1999, Deloittes predicted that one third of the remaining 11,000 bank branches would close by 2005, and that many sizeable communities would be left without a bank.

87WH
The takeover of the National Westminster bank by the Royal Bank of Scotland came with a threat to cut floor space by half, and 850 of the 1,700 NatWest branches may be under threat. Let us hope that the news that the hon. Member for Reading, West brought us has delayed that decision, but ultimately those branches are under threat. It was rightly pointed out that this country gets a raw deal. High street banks in the rest of Europe fare much better. We have 170 banks per million people. France has 440 banks per million people, while Spain has 900 per million people. There has been much protest in the House about what is happening. The hon. Member for Reading, West underestimated the problem. There have been 28 early-day motions so far this year, 13 of them condemning Barclays, three condemning Lloyds and two condemning both banks. To date, they have attracted 563 signatures. It is a widespread issue.
Banks are not just buildings; they are at the heart of a community. They provide a vital service to many small firms. Solicitors' firms, for example, use overnight safes. Shops use overnight safes and, as my right hon. friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said, they face a serious security problem and may lose out on interest if they cannot bank their takings locally on the day of trading because of time pressure. Building firms that need to provide ready money for their employees may also experience problems.
Banks constantly fob people off with science. They say that the whole world is changing and that internet and telephone banking services are available. At the moment, Barclays has some 650,000 internet customers of one description or another and 1 million customers who use telephone banking. However, I suspect that many of those customers use the branches, too. There are still many people who are not on the internet and do not bank by telephone, particularly the elderly.
As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) said, it is offensive that Sir Anthony Hopkins appears in an expensive television advertisement, backed up by other media advertising, talking about being Mr. Big in a big world, for big business. Well, what about the little man? What about ordinary individuals who make up such a large proportion of a bank's customers? It seems the most enormous public relations gaffe to be talking about "thinking big" when banks are closing small branches that serve big communities in little villages and parts of towns.
Mr. Salter: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his contribution, but does he not think that it is entirely appropriate that Sir Anthony Hopkins was selected to feature in the Barclays advertisement? After all, he made his reputation in "The Silence of the Lambs" by eating people.
Mr. Loughton: I am grateful for that contribution, which I saw coming. It is almost a question of dog eats dog in this instance.
I want to touch on the issue of urban regeneration, brought up by the hon. Member for Waveney. Urban regeneration is all about increasing jobs and enhancing the environment and housing. Communities are not just
88WH
a group of bric boxes; they need centres and facilities—especially for young people—shops, transport links, health centres and doctors. In walking away, as the hon. Member for Waveney put it, Barclays, Lloyds and other banks seem to have delivered a large vote of no confidence in the whole regeneration process, both in urban and rural areas. It is a severe blow to the aim of increasing facilities for people, a severe blow to the aim of attracting businesses into newly regenerated areas and a severe blow to those businesses already in the area, which may be clinging on by the skin of their teeth.
I am sure that banks could find other roles within communities—as business advice centres, for example—that accentuate the provision of customer services offered by them until now. There is interaction between banks and post offices, as several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, said. It seems crass that Barclays is carrying out a three-month trial with 270 branches of the post office in Cornwall. Surely, we need to see the results of those trials before the BC cataclysm starts in the next couple of weeks. It makes one wonder whether that is just another PR red herring from the bank, which is not really listening, although it claims to do so.
Many hon. Members made comments appropriate to the experiences of people in their constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk mentioned the security element of transporting cash and the cost of travel, especially in rural areas. The hon. Member for Reading, West said that the closures come at a time when banks are reporting record profits, so it represents an extraordinary PR gaffe. Certainly, in the case of Barclays, which has behaved worst of all in terms of not consulting Members of Parliament before launching the closures, it is a case of saying, "I hear what you say" without actually listening, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said. I must congratulate my hon. Friend on mentioning so many business men and traders in his short speech.
The debate has been interesting. The hon. Member for Waveney has done the House a service by raising the subject, and I hope that any representatives of banks who are here today or who read reports of the debate will take notice of what has been said. The problem caused by the closures is complex. There will be a problem of unemployment, a problem of access denied, especially people with disabilities and the elderly, such as Mr. Baldry, who was mentioned by the hon. Member for Waveney. Another piece of the mortar that keeps communities together is being chipped away and the communities of the future, which should be regenerated, will suffer yet another setback. It signifies a vote of no confidence in the regeneration of less well-off areas in both towns and rural areas. Banks should do much better and listen properly.
I conclude by quoting a sobering statistic. In this country, more than one in three people change their spouse, yet fewer than one in five changes their bank. Perhaps, in the area of banking, there will be a higher rate of divorce, or threatened divorce, unless banks prove to be a more loving partner.
12.19 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): We have had a good debate and it is evident

89WH
that hon. Members of all parties have strong feelings about its subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) has raised an important issue. I have a distant memory of his constituency, as I was a waiter at Pontin's in Lowestoft in a previous incarnation. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) treated us to an entertaining—I do not lose sight of the importance of this matter—account of the sit-in that occurred in her constituency. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) treated us to a terrifying vision of what might happen in Worthing if direct action were to spread that far.
As has been said, banks play an important part in the stability of local communities. I am sorry to say that in their drive for greater profits—it was pointed out that their recent profits have been huge—they are abandoning any sense of social responsibility. Increasingly, banks are interested only in servicing the prosperous, and the latest round of Barclays closures serves only to illustrate that trend. No amount of exhortation from me or any other politician is likely to make the slightest difference to what are essentially hard-nosed commercial decisions, although I am happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and others in their plea for Barclays to review plans, especially for closures in regeneration areas. The most useful role that the Government can play is to help to develop alternatives. That is why it is important that the Post Office remains in the public sector and why we are encouraging it to invest heavily so that it can provide customers in small or poor communities with a range of financial services that were hitherto provided only by banks.
One alternative that is becoming more widespread is the development of agency agreements between banks and post offices. Such agreements provide local post offices with additional business that can be crucial to sustaining viability and a valuable public service and are, therefore, a double benefit for the community. The Government are committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices. We have already embarked on an investment programme worth almost £500 million, to equip all post offices with a modern, online computer system enabling them to extend the banking facilities that they can offer on behalf of banks and building societies. That will be of considerable value in rural and urban areas from which the banks have withdrawn.
Only two weeks ago, we debated in Westminster Hall the closure of banks in Northumberland, at the other end of the country. Particular reference was made to the town of Belford, where a local bank—I think that it was a Barclays branch—was being closed. However, the local post office already had an agency agreement with two or three other financial institutions and was providing their services. A clear alternative was therefore available in that small town, and I hope that such arrangements will be emulated in other parts of the country. The Post Office already has successful agency agreements with the Co-operative bank, Lloyds TSB and Alliance and Leicester for the provision of free banking services to their customers. The services include
90WH
both withdrawals and paying in, and many post offices now offer foreign currency exchange, which shows that such arrangements can work to the mutual satisfaction of the banks, the Post Office and their customers.
I shall not tell the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) that I hear what he says about post offices, but I take this opportunity to restate what the Government have repeatedly made clear: anyone who wants to continue collecting their pension or benefit from a post office will be able to do so. I add one other point: it is no good signing petitions calling for post offices or banks to stay open if their services are not used. People must make use of local services or they will disappear. That applies to post offices as much as to banks.
As hon. Members have mentioned, Barclays is carrying out a three-month trial in 270 post offices in Cornwall to see how its services can be delivered. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that it is particularly unfortunate that the bank has nevertheless decided to proceed with its major programme of closures before seeing how the experiment is working. I said when this subject was last debated that I regard that action as premature.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that banks currently enjoy a high level of customer loyalty. They cannot expect that to continue if it is not reciprocated. A number of banks have recently attracted a good deal of adverse publicity over their plans to charge for withdrawals at cash machines. I am glad to see that they are now reviewing that plan in light of the public's anger. That is a demonstration that public opinion can, with a little help from the Government, make a difference, even with such apparently hardhearted institutions. Banks cannot, on the one hand, argue that branch closures make commercial sense because more cost-effective banking services can be offered by other means—telephone, internet, direct debit, cash machines and so on—and, on the other hand, expect their customers to pay higher charges for using those so-called more cost-effective technologies. They cannot have it both ways.
At the end of the day, the banks' customers must themselves make a commercial decision. If their bank fails to continue to meet their banking needs, they may consider transferring their business to one that does, either directly at a local branch, or through an agency agreement with the local post office. That sort of market pressure sometimes works. Some hon. Members will recall that in the 1970s, Barclays was forced to rethink its investment in South African defence bonds. Many local authorities that had bank accounts with Barclays and many individuals—including me, although I doubt whether the withdrawal of my modest account made a great deal of difference to the bank's corporate strategy—forced the bank to review its attitude towards its investment policy.
That sort of popular uprising can sometimes work, when appealing to the better nature of the banks might not. I note that Members of the National Assembly for Wales are calling for the closure of the Assembly's £3 billion account with Barclays. That ought to ring a bell or two in the appropriate quarter, even if what we say in Parliament does not have quite the same impact. That could easily spread, unless Barclays starts to take more

91WH
interest in the welfare of its customers. Only yesterday, for instance, the banks involved in the Link network succumbed to public pressure.
It is disappointing to see Barclays closing branches in an area where the benefits of the Government's investment of public money in regeneration are just beginning to bear fruit. As I said, such a move can help to undermine the viability of local shopping and commercial centres. There can be little doubt that such closures will represent a setback for the SRB partnership, because it will restrict access to banking services for local people and businesses. Unfortunately, it is not an isolated incident. Other areas that have benefited from the investment of public money in regeneration schemes are being hit by Barclays bank branch closures. We should also bear it in mind that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said, not only Barclays is at fault. Barclays has been mentioned a lot, and rightly so, but other banks are doing the same.
I am only too happy to add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and the other hon. Members who have spoken this morning, in calling on Barclays bank to reconsider its strategy. However, I am under no illusion—the most effective pressure on Barclays is likely to be customers voting with their feet.

Chronic Illness
12.30 pm
Dr. Howard Stoate: I feel fortunate to have secured a debate on the national health service and people with chronic long-term illness. As a former general practitioner—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. Hon. Members and members of the general public must leave the Room as quietly and, preferably, as safely as possible.
Dr. Stoate: As Someone who continues to practice in the NHS, I think that the subject is important and I feel privileged to raise it in the Chamber. I recently heard an interesting definition of the difference between hospital medicine and primary care. In hospital medicine, the conditions stay the same and the faces change; in primary care, the people stay the same and the conditions change. That is the point—the vast majority of chronic illness is managed in primary care. More than 90 per cent. of people using the NHS access it through primary care. Most people with chronic long-term illness are managed and treated in primary care.
In the United Kingdom, one in three people suffers from a chronic disability or illness, but the subject has not impinged enough on the recent debate on the future of the health service. As a recent World Health Organisation report commented:
If a new virus were expected to infect millions of citizens on the scale that chronic illness affects people world wide today, a public campaign would be launched immediately to mobilise scientific resources.
Perhaps because chronic illness is so pervasive and familiar to us all, we have ceased to deal with it with the urgency that it deserves. Many people view chronic complaints such as arthritis as a condition that is the natural consequence of old age. National voluntary organisations, such as the British League against Rheumatism and the National Society for the Relief of Paget's Disease, have experienced enormous difficulty in persuading the public to view the complaints as genuine diseases, rather than simply afflictions of the old.
The majority of people in this country perceive disease as something that is acute, treatable and of specific duration. Chronic complaints rarely fulfil that definition but, although many conditions are life threatening, they seriously affect the quality of an individual's life, preventing them from doing many of the things that most of us take for granted.
There is no reason why the maintenance of individuals' quality of life and the management of the pain and suffering experienced by those with long-term illness should not be seen as a priority in the health service on a par with acute conditions. Unless that happens, there is little chance of persuading the public of the impact and importance of long-term conditions.
The interest of people with long-term medical needs has been represented for the past 10 years by the Long-term Medical Conditions Alliance. That is the umbrella body for national voluntary organisations working to meet the needs of such people. More than 700,000 people belong to its 111 member organisations. It aims to ensure that the voice of people with long-term illness is heard and to provide support to its members.

93WH
Working to identify and distil common issues across a wide range of conditions has been a considerable task, for which the LMCA and its director, Judy Wilson, deserve the highest praise. The efforts to promote the interests of the members at national level and to instigate a debate on the subject have been extremely important and have served to identify and focus attention on the key areas of health service provision that are in need of review. Despite that huge contribution, many patient organisations feel that they are not always valued or sufficiently used by professionals or policy makers in the NHS.
The organisations have a large role to play in the shaping and monitoring of health service policy development. Ensuring that their role in supporting the health service forms part of a long-term strategy, in line with the 1998 compact on relations between the voluntary sector and the Government, would help to strengthen the relationship between the sector and the health service. The experience of people suffering from chronic illness confirms that, although the NHS is skilled at treating people with short-term or acute illness, there is no consistent, reliable mechanism to coordinate their treatment, which is based both at hospital and in the community.
Clearly, links between services and their integration need to be improved, both on the ground and at policy and planning level—between health and social services, acute and community services, and primary and secondary care. Greater emphasis on multi-disciplinarity is also necessary, so that the care of each individual is not focused exclusively on the medical model of care. Continuity between medical services for adolescents, adults and the elderly is not properly managed. We need a more cohesive and integrated approach.
Despite the prevalence of chronic illness, the general public and even health professionals can be ignorant about what it is and how it should be tackled. Sufferers of chronic illness, including people with physical and mental ill health, are frequently on the margins of society. We lack the knowledge and experience of their conditions that would allow them to play a full and active part in society, with rights and responsibilities. That sense of isolation and alienation needs to be challenged.
Long-term chronic illness does not merely have an impact on people's health; it affects their careers, relationships and social existence. Many people feel obliged to give up their jobs or feel severely constrained in what jobs they can take. They often need employers to be flexible, but many companies struggle, or are unwilling, to provide that support. It is vital that the problem is recognised by the Government and that ways are found to relieve specific pressures and tackle the challenges faced by people who suffer from long-term illness.
Chronic illness should not be confused with long-term care. A small number of people, especially the elderly, may need long-term care at the end of their lives, but most people with chronic illnesses are not in permanent care and are responsible for the management of their illnesses. They often receive insufficient support and
94WH
guidance because their general practitioners and other health professionals lack information about their condition and how best to live with it. We must ensure that doctors have access to basic information about conditions and that they are aware of local support groups and national voluntary organisations that help sufferers.
The LMCA does a valuable job on behalf of people with long-term illness. It also publicises the work of its 111 member organisations. Nevertheless, it urgently needs the active support of the Government, the medical establishment and the wider community to ensure that the issue is given national prominence. Such specialist groups recognise that helping people with chronic illness involves more than diagnosis, treatment, cure and discharge. The health service is effective at servicing a condition by providing the requisite drugs and treatment to stabilise the advancement of chronic illness, but it is not as well prepared to deal with the wider issue of helping an individual achieve a full quality of life and take responsibility for his or her well-being.
In addition, people with chronic long-term illnesses often suffer from more than one complaint, although the severity of each condition fluctuates and is rarely stable. The acute sector or general practice is not always equipped to cope with the nature of long-term illness. Part of the problem is that the consultation procedure treats patients as consumers rather than as proactive individuals who are capable of taking a lead in their own treatment. The person with a long-term condition should be fully involved in deciding how treatment should be administered. He or she should be more than just a passive recipient of treatment.
The problem has been recognised by the Government who set up the expert patients task force, which is chaired by the chief medical officer. Its purpose is to design the new expert patients programme to consider the role that chronic disease sufferers can play as experts in managing their diseases. An expert patients programme for arthritis has been piloted and the Government are funding a programme for people with different conditions, which is co-ordinated by the LMCA. The programme arms patients with the knowledge, skills and motivations needed to take control of their illnesses and manage their symptoms. It allows people to develop skills to control feelings of anger and depression and to manage diet and exercise routines. Such help means that people will go to the doctor less often, use services differently and feel physically and mentally better.
The programme could be extended so that the sufferers of long-term medical conditions play a more active role in the training of health professionals. That would enable them to treat sufferers more effectively. Given the wealth of experience and expertise that expert patients have, it is not unrealistic that they should have a greater role in shaping how patients are treated. Patients are often the best experts. We could all learn from and share in their knowledge.
Although the programme is valuable, and despite the publication of the White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" and coverage in the national press, too few people are aware of it. Aside from question of publicity, a key issue is that of service variation by geography and by age and background. It is a matter of concern to all national voluntary organisations. People

95WH
with long-term conditions should in principle have equal access to the most effective medical and non-medical treatments, drugs and complementary therapies, where appropriate. I am sure that the work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will ensure that, as new treatments become available and new therapies are evaluated, they will be made available to all. I welcome that development and I expect the future to show us what can be achieved.
Despite what I have said, diagnosis and referral by GPs still varies substantially, while access to specialist clinics and services, including nursing care and physiotherapy, often depends on where one lives. There is also evidence that older people and those from certain ethnic minority or lower income groups do not enjoy equality of access with the rest of the community.
At a recent forum on the health of ethnic minorities in the borough of Gravesham attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) and I, I raised ethnic minorities' access to health services. Too often, cultural and linguistic barriers between the health service and the ethnic minority communities prevent the latter from using the health service to the full. Often, someone whose first language is not English finds it difficult to understand explanations, or to obtain suitable written information. Gaining access to, using and benefiting from services is thus more difficult. Consequently, the illnesses of people from ethnic communities are sometimes diagnosed and treated later than those of other people. Efforts have been made to improve consultation with ethnic minorities and to bring services, including screening services, into the community. We need to build on that success, specifically with respect to long-term medical care.
Before this morning's debate I made a presentation at the Royal Society of Medicine on the Government's national health service framework for coronary heart disease, as part of cholesterol awareness day. I met my colleague Dr. Ian Banks, who is chairman of the men's health forum and a spokesman for the British Medical Association on men's health issues. We discussed the fact that men often find it difficult to obtain access to health services. They do not necessarily make the best use of GP services, go for screening or otherwise get the best from the service.
Many of the changes that are needed would involve changes of emphasis and education rather than huge amounts of money. Our discussion concerned making men aware of the small incremental life style changes that could make a huge difference to their health. It is difficult to bring about massive changes to people's life styles, but small changes often make a big difference, without upsetting people's lives too much. I hope to continue to work with the men's health forum to find out what we can do to improve men's health simply by education programmes and making them aware of services. I am sure that we could bring about significant change by doing that.
The Commission for Health Improvement is an important innovation and I hope that it will help to realise the Government's commitment to ironing out service inequalities in the NHS. It must ensure that those inequalities are eradicated from every aspect of the service, including provision for sufferers of long-term illness. One way of tackling the holes in the service would be to develop and enhance the role of the
96WH
specialist nurse. That should not be seen as a means of delegating to nurses work that should be done by doctors, but as a means of building on nurses' important work in the community in the treatment of people with long-term conditions.
Nurses' work often focuses on the whole person. Their interest in each individual is not exclusively medical and that is ideal for the treatment of such patients. The role of nurse prescribers and nurse-led clinics should be encouraged and expanded. I am pleased that the Government are expanding the role of nurses throughout the health service, with a widening of scope and increased availability of specialist nurses.
I spoke yesterday on the subject to the chairman of the Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley Healthcare Partnerships primary care group, Dr. Alasdair Thomson, a fellow GP. He told me that in the Dartford and Gravesham area it has already been possible to employ a specialist multiple sclerosis nurse and an additional epilepsy nurse. Work is now being done on the possibility of employing a Parkinson's nurse. Such initiatives are important and show how nurses with specialist skills can help people to make their lives more productive and make less use of services.
Much of what I have described makes sound economic sense. It is not a drain on resources or an additional cost to the health service. The Royal College of Nursing sent me some data on work done by Professor Sir Brian Jarman at Imperial college on the difference that nurses can make in the use of health services, in particular those who specialise in Parkinson's disease. They can reduce morbidity, mortality, the risk of fractures and falls, the amount of hospital in-patient time, nursing home costs and costs to social services as a result of health service investment. Professor Jarman estimated that between £300 and £500 per patient per annum could be saved on the treatment of Parkinson's disease by the use of specialist nurses.
I am not advocating a huge increase in extra health service resources, but a more focused use of those resources. We must ensure that they are tailored to the need of the patient. I want them to benefit the patient's as well as the nation's health, while not putting excessive and huge burdens on the health service. It is a matter not of throwing money at the problem, but of simply changing emphasis and ensuring that the right people with the right skills are put in touch with the right patients, to the benefit of everyone.
Also, the Government need to recognise formally the importance of chronic long-term medical conditions by the establishment of a ministerial responsibility for long-term medical conditions to oversee reforms in the service, ensure a more holistic approach to the needs of sufferers and raise the profile of chronic illness with both the Government and the country.
12.45 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on securing the Adjournment debate. He has considerable expertise on

97WH
health issues. I hope that I am not taken ill in the Chamber but, if I were, I can think of no better place than in an Adjournment debate with my hon. Friend.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me caution the Minister. He will discover that, on the whole, politicians who are doctors should be avoided at every level.
Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford is right to stress the importance of the management of chronic illness as an aspect of health care. One in three of the population suffers from a chronic, long-term condition. Patients who live with long-term illness are usually knowledgeable about their condition and are often in the best position to manage their illness with the help and support of health care professionals and other agencies, such as local authority social services.
As my hon. Friend said, in acute illness the object of health care is to return people to their previous states of health, so that they can resume their everyday life. With chronic illness, patients' lives and frequently those of their families are changed, often for ever. Our aim in treating chronic illness is to ensure as far as possible people's ability to continue to live independent and enjoyable lives. I welcome the debate, not least because it gives us a chance to set out the Government's policy on caring for people with chronic illness.
I reassure my hon. Friend that the other Minister of State at the Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), has ministerial responsibility for long-term chronic illness. The Chamber may question why I am answering this debate, but that is a private matter between him and me. I hope that I can effectively represent his work.
We have set out our aims to build a new national health service—one that is faster, fairer and more convenient for patients. It is a radical programme of change to transform the NHS, keeping it true to its values—based on need, not the ability to pay. The new NHS will be barely recognisable by the time that we have finished our 10-year programme of modernisation. A key part of that is a more patient-centred national health service with greater patient and public involvement in service delivery. We are integrating that principle into national policy through our reforms. It is happening through new organisations such as primary care groups, initiatives such as health action zones and Department of Health initiatives such as the patient-partnership strategy.
Users and carers are represented in new organisations such as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Commission for Health Improvement. They are involved in developing the national service frameworks. People with chronic illness, in particular, have much good advice to offer those organisations based on their personal experience of local services.
I pay tribute to the work of the Long-Term Medical Conditions Alliance and its director, Judy Wilson. The merits of the organisation are well recognised in the Government and it gives us a great deal of help in formulating policy for people with chronic illness.
The Chancellor's announcement last week of significant extra investment for the national health service—an average of 6.3 per cent. in a four-year period
98WH
in England—is tremendously good news for everyone who uses the NHS. It will provide resources for modernisation, which need to be coupled with change in some of the elements that my hon. Friend described.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described five challenges, or themes, in improving the national health service: partnership, in ensuring that the different elements of the system work together; performance, in improving productivity and clinical performance; developing the professions, the entire national health service and the social care work force; patient care; and the prevention and avoidance of ill health. In taking forward that work, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has created teams to examine how those challenges can be met and will add a sixth team to consider patient empowerment as an essential part of a modern health system. Alongside that work will be a work force planning review designed to ensure that the national health service has the sort of work force that it needs to deliver for patients—a work force who can deliver services that are more flexible, skilled and customer driven.
My hon. Friend mentioned specialist nurses and I commend the local initiative in his area. Such nurses have an important role to play in the management of chronic conditions. The number of posts is a matter for commissioners and providers at local level and forms an integral part of their planning for the needs of local populations. There is no doubt that people with chronic illness can benefit from access to a wide range of nursing services, including practice and district nurses, who may be able to refer to specialists such as continence nurse specialists and MS nurse specialists, for example.
I hope that the work force review will strengthen local work force planning so that needs identified in local health improvement programmes, including those of people with chronic illnesses, are properly reflected in the training and employment of appropriate staff, including specialist nurses.
In the new approach to the new national health service, it is important to improve the way in which we aim to deliver services. Too often, people with long-term chronic conditions have been made to fit themselves around the way in which care is provided locally, regardless of whether that meets their individual needs. To overcome that approach, we have developed as part of our reforms the concept of long-term service agreements between commissioners and providers, based on the concept of pathways of care and recognising that patients at different times in their lives will need care and support from primary care, secondary care and social care. By developing services around the pathway of care, we expect the service to be much more flexible and to put the individual patient's care at the heart of the system.
That new approach will develop in time. At local level, people will inevitably have to concentrate on a limited number of local priorities each year, but it will produce better arrangements for patients. That approach will reinforce the need for the seamless working of health, social services and other agencies such as housing, which my hon. Friend discussed.
We must break down the barriers between the national health service and social services. The Health Act 1999 put in place much of the legislative framework

99WH
that is needed for closer working between the health service and social services. Those new powers will provide opportunities to improve services for people with chronic illnesses. People living with chronic illnesses know only too well how failure to deliver the right package of care can result in frustration and unnecessary difficulties in the activities of daily life.
Clinical governance will underpin much of the Government's quality agenda. It is a means by which standards will be raised and it will form the basis for monitoring and evaluating quality improvements in the national health service. It will play a key role in providing a health service that improves the overall standard of care that it delivers, reduces unacceptable variations in treatment and ensures that decisions about care and treatment are supported by up-to-date evidence of effectiveness.
As part of the process of clinical governance and our wider drive to tackle variations in treatment in care, it is important to focus on chronic conditions among others. Let me provide some examples. Good work intended to raise standards of care in chronic neurological illness was launched by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health recently. An innovative neurology programme for GPs was developed by the British Brain and Spine Foundation in collaboration with the university of Bath. It developed after in-depth research to establish GP needs and it aims to improve early diagnosis, case assessment and management and referral for secondary care. It was supported by a research grant from the Department of Health.
The programme focuses on the six most commonly seen aspects of general practice and provides a unique opportunity for United Kingdom GPs to enhance their skills in a crucial area of medicine. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford will view that as a practical example of recognising the need to tackle variations in referral rates and the management of different conditions. He is right that we must ensure that it applies to all members of the community, including the black and ethnic minority population. He rightly referred to some good practice in the system, but it remains patchy. As we mainstream our equal opportunities and diversity agenda in the Department of Health, it is important to iron out any differences in the quality of services received by different members of the community.
Diabetes is relevant to the whole population, but its incidence is higher among the south Asian population. It is a chronic condition for which we are developing a national service framework to set out clear standards for care and treatment. More than 1 million people in the UK have diabetes and it is predicted to increase significantly in the next decade. Diabetes and its complications account for at least 9 per cent. of health
100WH
care costs. At the personal level, it is not properly managed and long-term complications—blindness, renal failure, lower limb amputation and cardiovascular disease—can be severe.
There is considerable evidence throughout the country of variations in the organisation and quality of diabetes services. Our plan is to develop a national service framework for implementation within the national health service in spring 2002. It will set national standards, define service models and put in place strategies to support implementation and delivery. It will also set out performance measures against which progress in an agreed time scale will be monitored. The expert reference group for the NSF is adopting a patient-centred approach. As well as including two people with diabetes and the chief executive of the British Diabetic Association on the group, it is considering how else to access views and information from service users.
I have provided two examples of approaches to tackling variations in the quality of service. I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the most important and exciting ways for the Government to work with people with chronic illness is the development of the concept of the expert patient. Research shows that patient-led self-management schemes have beneficial effects. Improved health, a better ability to communicate with health professionals and fewer hospital admissions will result if patients are informed about their condition, know where to receive a treatment and have greater control over it.
We have established an expert patients task force, led by the chief medical officer. It is developing an expert patient programme for people with chronic conditions, which is likely to lead to more lay-led self-management programmes, the strengthening of professionally led, condition-specific, self-management programmes and the integration of aspects of the current self-management programme into the planning of the future health system. It will give advice on how self-management programmes for people with chronic diseases can be brought right into the main stream of the national health service rather than remain a fringe activity. We hope to receive the recommendations by autumn.
Some professionals might initially view the programme as potentially threatening, but it will not replace patients' needs for informed advice and treatment from health care and social care professionals. I am pleased that health professionals in the task force have underlined that approach.
My hon. Friend made an interesting point about using patients' expertise in professional training. I recognise that this is done in some areas, but there is scope for improvement.

EU (Enhanced Co-operation)
12.59 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: I shall concentrate on the global scene. Before I present my arguments in favour of strengthening political and economic ties with the United States and the North American Free Trade Area in particular, I should make it clear for the benefit of any mischievous journalists who might read this speech, let alone listen to it—let alone any mischievous Minister who might be sitting opposite me—that this debate is most certainly not about our leaving the European Union. I shall argue today for a positive and additional step to be taken that I believe will benefit the British economy. If taken, it will secure jobs and generate increased jobs for the benefit of all in this nation.
This debate is timely. Two significant events have taken place in the past couple of weeks. First the Institute of Directors, which is not known for its Euroscepticism, published a detailed report entitled, "EU Membership, What's the Bottom Line?" Graham Leach from the IOD's economics department conducted a detailed cost-benefit analysis of our EU membership. Incidentally, I am asking the Government to do just that in my Analysis of Costs and Benefits (European Union Membership) Bill, which is on the Order Paper.
The IOD analysis is deeply disturbing. Despite all the advantages, including the single European market, the inward investment that we have enjoyed from Japan, Korea and elsewhere, the influence that we have exercised in Brussels—or not—and most recently in Lisbon, our EU membership is still, it would seem, a net drain on British resources. According to the study, the net cost of EU membership to each family in Britain is at least £1,000 a year, perhaps double that. That money could be spent on pensions, schools and the health service in Staffordshire as well as in the rest of the UK. Sadly, the Government are in no position to disagree because they have not conducted their own analysis. Perhaps they fear the answer.
First, may I challenge the Government and the Minister in particular to enact the provisions of my Bill? There should be no no-go areas for knowledge and free debate. The second event in the past two weeks has been the visit of the International Trade Commission from Washington DC at the behest of the United States Senate Finance Committee. It is conducting its own cost-benefit analysis into the advantages of the UK joining NAFTA. The visit is significant, although not because it will lead anywhere in the short term; it will not. Sadly, a Senate committee can no more dictate to the White House than a Commons Select Committee can dictate policy to Downing street.
However, this inquiry demonstrates that there has been a sea change in attitude in the United States regarding economic relations with Britain. For years, the United States showed no interest in such ties with Britain. Harold Wilson's sensible overtures in that direction, from 20 or 30 years ago, were rebuffed. However, as the song goes, "The times they are a'changin"'. Technology and changed practices have seen to that. It is now cheaper to phone anywhere in the United States than France. It is cheaper to send a container of coal, or anything, to New Jersey than to
102WH
Nuremberg. We share the same commercial and civil law. We share the same language, the same heritage and the same way of doing business. As I am sure the Minister will confirm, that already leads to huge mutual investment in each other's countries. I shall say more about that later.
There could be more mutual trade for our mutual benefit. Growing voices in Washington DC and beyond see the potential benefits of Britain joining NAFTA. That would create a bigger market with an even bigger gross domestic product than the European Union.
In the darkest days of the war, before Pearl harbour, Winston Churchill said that the United Kingdom and
the United States will have to be somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs for mutual and general advantage. For my own part, looking out across the future. I do not view the process with any misgivings. I could not stop it if I wished; no one can stop it. Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling.
How appropriate that Churchill, the product of an Anglo-American alliance should have foreseen another so fruitful. So firm was his belief in "the special relationship" as he christened it, that he vowed that with Europe and the Commonwealth it should remain one of the three interlocking circles with which future British foreign policy should be concerned.
As Churchill foresaw, the broad strategic interests of the United States and the United Kingdom continue to run together. Those interests lie in the preservation and promotion of peace, democracy and free trade. Our two nations are inextricably bound in the effort to secure those interests. Over the years, there has been cooperation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the World Trade Organisation and other forums to secure those ends. It has not been easy, however. The growing pressure in continental Europe towards greater harmony of purpose, or federalism, is straining those ties at political, military and economic levels. The United States and the United Kingdom share enormous mutual interests for the benefit of us all, but they are being jeopardised.
In trade terms, the United States and the United Kingdom share, and are continually replenishing, a colossal mutual investment. In 1997, as in most other years, the United States received the largest share of total foreign direct investment—more than 30 per cent.—not from Japan but from the United Kingdom. The total UK investment in that year amounted to some $18.3 billion; in north America as a whole, our net direct investment in the past decade has been double our investment in the European Union, and that huge investment is reciprocal. Indeed, more United States outward investment goes to the United Kingdom than to any other country. In the past decade, net direct investment in the United Kingdom by United States and Canadian firms was one and a half times that of net direct investment from the European Union. In 1998, United States capital outflow to the United Kingdom was $35 billion compared with $75 billion to the rest of Europe combined. What is left of our overseas territories received an additional $5 billion in that year, more than Portugal and Spain combined.

103WH
The importance of our trade with the United States should not detract from the importance of our European markets; by the same token, we must not exaggerate or over-privilege our trade with Europe at the expense of that with the United States.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Will my hon. Friend reflect on that fact that the European Union's total share of world trade, excluding the United Kingdom, has fallen by 11 per cent. since 1992, while the UK's has increased by 9 per cent., mostly to NAFTA? In that time, the United States has created 13 million jobs and the euro zone has lost 700,000.
Mr. Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It shows that Europe has much to learn from the United States. As I shall say later, it seems that at present Europe is trying to exclude the United States, at Europe's cost.
Some vested political interests claim that European markets account for 60 per cent. of our foreign trade, but the Office for National Statistics pink book reveals that the true figure is a shade over 48 per cent., and even that, valuable as it is, can hide almost as much as it reveals. For example, a substantial portion of our trade with Europe takes the form of goods, such as motor cars, which are exported immediately, often to the United States. Those substantial re-exports constitute trade through, rather than with, Europe. That should not be used to exaggerate our economic reliance on a continent with which the United Kingdom has a massive trading deficit, probably as a result of the matter mentioned by my hon. Friend.
The telecommunications revolution and computing—especially the rise of the internet—have closed the gap between the UK and US economies to the point that it is vanishing altogether. Dominated by a common language, the internet represents the death of distance once predicted by the makers of jet airplanes and express trains. The cheapest international call that one may make from the United Kingdom is now not to Ireland, Germany or France but to the United States. A tunnel may traverse the short distance to Calais, but a new cyber tunnel across the Atlantic affords far speedier access to the United States.
Anglo-American relations are as fused in the defence of democracy as they are in trade and technology. Thrown together in two world wars, the United Kingdom and the United States went on to form an alliance against communist expansion, which came into practical effect during the Malayan and Korean campaigns. Between 1975 and 1989, our two nations stood alone among major western countries in devoting more than 4 per cent. of gross domestic product to defence and exerting financial pressure on the Kremlin that eventually brought Gorbachev to the negotiating table and the cold war to an end.
A firm mutual belief in confronting one's enemies characterised Anglo-American defence relations throughout the 1980s and 1990s. I shall give a brief history lesson to illustrate the reciprocity that marked Anglo-American defence relations between 1980 and 1985. In January 1980, the Conservative Government rightly announced support for 160 US nuclear missiles to be stationed in the UK to counter the threat from SS20 missiles deployed by the Soviet Union. In 1981,
104WH
Britain declared its wholehearted support for President Reagan's plan to set up a rapid deployment force to be dispatched to trouble spots throughout the world. That force was the forerunner of today's rapid reaction forces.
In 1981, the United States sold the United Kingdom second-generation Trident missiles at a considerable discount, I am happy to say. The US also provided crucial assistance to our Falklands campaign in 1982. In 1983, we contributed military support to a US peacekeeping force that prevented Syria engaging in the Lebanon conflict. Such an engagement would have been disastrous. The well-revived Anglo-American relationship then went on to manifest itself in a host of different areas in the second half of the 1980s.
So much for the past, the cold war is no more and defence expenditure—although higher in the UK and US than in continental Europe—has been slashed. What of the present? When a poll for The Economist in November 1999 asked who was the UK's most reliable ally in a crisis, 59 per cent. of respondents cited the United States, despite the ending of the cold war. Only 16 per cent. of respondents paid Europe that compliment. Similarly, when respondents in the American social attitudes survey are asked who is their most reliable ally, they reply, year after year, that the honour of that status goes to the UK, above even Canada.
Regrettably and unnecessarily, the special relationship between the United Kingdom and United States—so long the linchpin of world security—is coming under strain from growing European integration. In trade and defence, the mutual interests underpinning the Atlantic alliance have been ill served by EU policies targeted, sometimes unashamedly, at challenging or frustrating the United States.
The repeated attempts of former EU Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan to secure a free trade agreement between EU and NAFTA countries collapsed as a result of French fears about US dumping. Sadly, many politicians in Paris are hostile to such a deal ever being concluded. Rather than link with a genuine free trade area, such as NAFTA, or press for free trade agreements through worldwide bodies such as the WTO, the European Union has chosen to secure bilateral trade deals between itself and smaller economies. By creating a patchwork of varying trade deals throughout the world, the EU seeks not so much free trade as favourable terms with parties too weak on their own to resist its protectionist demands.
Even the United Kingdom has suffered from the protectionist instincts of some EU countries. As recently as 16 March, manufacturers of milk chocolate in the UK, including the well-known brand of Cadbury's in the west midlands, learned the good news that its product is to be allowed into certain European markets for the first time in 30 years. Hurrah for British chocolate!
What about defence? European nations have been making drastic cuts in expenditure at exactly the same time as they seek to create, as the President of the European Commission Romano Prodi has made clear, a fully fledged European army. According to President Chirac:
The object of the European defence identity is to contain the United States.

105WH
That is some quote—quite extraordinary. Speaking in Paris in December, Chancellor Schroder echoed President Chirac's comment, stating:
whining about US dominance is not good enough. We have to act.
Such anti-American rhetoric may go down well with continental audiences but it certainly does not reflect British interests. The UK might not have cause for concern if the anti-American streak within European integration remained rhetorical. Yet, as Dr. John Hulseman, senior European affairs analyst at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, pointed out:
We need to stop thinking that European rhetoric isn't serious, that it is just a cultural eccentricity. Rather it reflects the honest beliefs of a people that have very different political and economic agendas from our own."
The difference between the Anglo-American and the Continental perspectives to which Dr. Hulseman referred surfaces time and again whenever crucial interests are at stake. In December 1999, France abstained from a crucial vote in the UN Security Council on sanctions against Iraq. On 18 January, France allied herself with Russia and China in opposing Anglo-American moves to appoint Rolf Ekeus, a Swede with great experience of arms control, to oversee the destruction of Iraqi weapons.
Each of these cases—and there are so many more—exposes a fundamental mismatch between the Anglo-American emphasis on free trade and active defence and the continental tradition of military equivocation and economic protectionism.
However, there is an historic opportunity now to narrow the gap between our treaty commitments to the EU and our cultural and historic commitments to the United States. The opportunity to narrow this gap is being created not in London, and certainly—of course—not in Brussels, but in Washington DC and elsewhere in north America. I repeat that I am not convinced that the US Senate Finance Committee will lead to our joining NAFTA; indeed, this is not possible without a change being made to the treaty of Rome. However, there is a nexus of events and circumstances that we would be foolish and irresponsible to ignore.
If the IOD and other economists are right, and there is no net benefit—indeed, a cost—to our membership of the EU, we must renegotiate our terms of membership. We owe that to our farmers, fishermen and pensioners and to the wealth creators in our society. Expansion in the EU to absorb the eastern European states, which I welcome, will worsen the cost-benefit outcome for Britain unless we renegotiate our treaty obligations to the EU. Such renegotiation is therefore urgent, and should include the repatriation of Britain's right to enter into its own individual bilateral treaties with other nations.
Let me make it clear that renegotiation is not a code for withdrawal; it is a code for commonsense economics. I remind the wishy-washy folk in the Foreign Office—I hope that the Minister is not one of them—who say that renegotiation is impossible that Mrs. Thatcher knew that in Europe, as elsewhere in life, he who pays the piper calls the tune. Britain is a major contributor to the EU budget.
106WH
The current position is unsustainable. The future without renegotiation will be impossible. I am not driven by anti-European feelings—I speak French and German and have friends in those countries. I understand the reasons why Europe, which has endured two European wars in the past century, causing border changes and huge migration, wants to move towards political integration. That is natural, but what is right for continental Europe is not right for Britain. Even my French friends refer to "les Anglo-Saxons", automatically linking Britain with the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They instinctively understand what is logical and right.
Britain's membership of NAFTA, while staying in a looser, freer EU, is both logical and right. My purpose is not to argue for any specific option under investigation by the United States Senate. I call upon the Government and the Opposition to prepare and reflect upon specific proposals to move the special relationship forward for the benefit of all our people and to shield it from anti-American pressure.
Although Anglo-American relations may, as Churchill put it, roll on like the Mississippi, even that great river has several forks in its path. If the United Kingdom's membership of the EU is not to constitute such a fork, we must act now for all our sakes. We must actively investigate how to strengthen that relationship, the success of which is vital to this country and, as history records, the world.
1.22 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): It is usual to give a customary word of congratulation to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) on securing the debate. His tenacity in pursuing causes is well known and appreciated with serious affection.
I shall comment on the points that he makes in the few moments that he has left me to reply. First, he suggests joining the North American Free Trade Area, but that is not a good idea. Secondly, he suggests renegotiating the treaties of Rome and Maastricht, but that is a disingenuous cover for withdrawal. Thirdly, he suggests that the benefits of joining NAFTA would greatly outweigh those of our EU membership, but the benefits of being in the EU greatly outweigh those of joining NAFTA. Fourthly, the Americans prefer us to be in the EU, not to withdraw from it.
Mr. Fabricant: I did not say that we should join NAFTA instead of the EU. I am surprised that the Minister fell into that trap.
Mr. Battle: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a chance to reply, I shall tell him precisely why it is not possible to join NAFTA without withdrawing from the EU, which the International Trade Commission acknowledges in its terms of reference. Crucially, those terms of reference refer to the EU, but that point is missed because the Opposition say that they will construct a purely hypothetical model.
It is disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to argue that we could remain in the EU if we were to join NAFTA. He acknowledged that changes to the treaty of Rome would be needed. He sat through the Maastricht

107WH
debates. He is simply pretending that we can be members of both. He argues that that would bring us closer to the EU, but he does not say that joining NAFTA would inevitably mean leaving the EU, with disastrous consequences for jobs, trade and foreign investment in Britain. I would prefer it if the hon. Gentleman openly said, "Let us leave the EU and form other relationships", because that is the implication of his arguing that we should join NAFTA. Let him say openly that we should leave the EU.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the report published by the Institute of Directors. The press release of 14 March, which launched the IOD report on the costs of EU memberships, states:
There are no simple solutions. Withdrawal from the EU to the EEA—
the European Economic Area—
would expose the UK to regulation without representation. This is why the IoD argues that the UK should remain within the EU and fight for radical reform from the inside.
That is what our Government are doing. It is what the Prime Minister did at the Lisbon summit last week.
Joining NAFTA would mean leaving the EU, as it would be incompatible with the Single European Act that set up the single market in 1987 under Baroness Thatcher. We do not intend to join NAFTA and leave the EU. It would not be in our interests because more than half our overseas trade is with the EU—59 per cent. of our exports and 54 per cent. of our imports. NAFTA now accounts for only 16 per cent. of our exports. That does not include our total trade with the EU, which is £240 billion, as opposed to £79 billion with NAFTA. Not only big exporters are involved: 30 to 40 per cent. of Britain's small and medium enterprises now do business with the EU.
The European single market comprises 372 million customers, or 38 per cent. of world trade. Three and a half million British jobs depend on that trade to some extent. The EU will be enlarged to more than 500 million customers and will be the largest market for trade and investment in the world. Leaving it would jeopardise foreign direct investment. More than 44,000 jobs were generated by that investment in the past year. I cannot imagine companies choosing to invest in the UK to gain access to NAFTA the other side of the Atlantic. The UK would not be an investment springboard for entry to
108WH
NAFTA, so leaving the EU and moving to NAFTA, for which the hon. Member for Lichfield argued, would jeopardise our economy.
Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister keeps saying that I said and implied that, but I made it clear that I did not do so.
Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Please could we pretend to be civilised? That is not a point of order.
Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The argument will not stack up. He cannot argue for our joining NAFTA without our leaving the EU. He does not seem to recognise that, but everyone else does. Our relationship with the United States is of fundamental importance. Our political relationships are strong. The Government of the US have warmly welcomed the European defence initiative, which strengthens rather than undermines the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Our economic ties with the US are stronger than ever and 40 per cent. of all US investment in Europe is in the UK already.
It is because we are in the European Union that our influence in the US is so strong and significant. Our Government play a full role in Europe and are deeply engaged in shaping it, and that is why we are strong partners with the US. Raymond Seitz, former US ambassador to Britain, said:
if Britain's voice is less influential in Paris or Bonn, it is likely to be less influential in Washington.
In his book, "Over Here", he said:
the option of leaving the Union altogether … is a flimsy proposition, unlikely to gain much traction except with the graspers of straws … Standing between America and Europe … was never either-or. It always had to be both … If Britain is not part of important European decision-making, it is less likely to be important in American decision-making, and vice-versa. If Britain is aloof from developments on the continent, it is bound to be more marginal in America.
That is why we are engaged at the heart of Europe, shaping the agenda of the future, as the Prime Minister demonstrated at the Lisbon summit. We are building a truly single market, driving forward a modern agenda and using technology as a means to generate employment through innovation, enterprise and imagination.
The hon. Member for Lichfield may now gain a reputation as a straw grasper, but I suspect that he is an outrider for the Leader of the Opposition, who is covertly campaigning to join NAFTA. That is merely a covert strategy to withdraw from the EU, which is why the Foreign Secretary spelled out that the Tories are prepared to jeopardise British jobs to justify their extreme anti-European prejudices.

Immigration and Nationality Directorate
1.29 pm
Ms Diane Abbott: At the beginning of the new millennium, millions of people are criss-crossing the globe, seeking asylum from war, disease, starvation and economic collapse. That is the context in which all western European countries are experiencing a rise in the number of asylum seekers. The majority of asylum seekers find asylum within their own regions, whether in Africa, the middle east or the Balkans. Only a minority find their way to western Europe, America or Canada.
The number of asylum seekers has risen as a result of civil war and economic problems around the world. A fair, efficient, transparent legal system must be at the heart of meeting the challenge of that sad army so that asylum claims can be dealt with. Hon. Members and perhaps even Ministers may believe that a more punitive line is in order. Whatever one's views on asylum seekers, fairness, efficiency and transparency must be at the heart of the system for dealing with claims.
My hon. Friend the Minister will not need to be reminded that we inherited an extremely bad position from the Conservative party. However, I do not want to detain the Chamber on the iniquities of the previous Administration. Three years into a Labour Administration and with a general election in sight, it is appropriate and necessary to examine our stewardship of the issue.
Ministers have addressed the matter and done many good things, as my staff and I have seen for ourselves. For example, we welcome the Members' hotline, and are grateful for the helpfulness and enthusiasm of those staffing it. Sadly, however, it cannot deal with asylum cases. We welcome the fact that a backlog squad has been set up, which, as we have seen, is enthusiastic and well led and managed. Unfortunately, however, it does not deal with asylum cases.
We welcome the reforms of the initial consideration unit, which, as we have witnessed, is enthusiastic, well led and doing good work. However, I remind Ministers that more than 100,000 asylum seekers are waiting for their application to be processed. That figure may not be exact, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will provide me with the most up-to-date figure.
I remind Ministers that the backlog of asylum seekers has risen under the present Government. Last May, when the Immigration and Asylum Bill was in Committee, the backlog stood at about 70,000, and it is distressing that it continues to rise. It is important to put on record the problems for individuals and communities caused by delays in dealing with asylum cases. Uncertainty about what people are to do with their lives sometimes continues for months and years. This morning, I interviewed a series of asylum seekers, many of whom have waited for months and even years for their case to be resolved.
Practical problems are also caused by such delays. People cannot get driving licences, have difficulty claiming benefit and cannot travel abroad to study or for a family funeral. The Minister's constituency adjoins mine and its population is similar, so she will be aware that people experience many practical difficulties as a result of the delay in dealing with asylum cases.
110WH
Furthermore, the biggest incentive for people to make an unfounded in-country asylum claim is the long delay in processing such claims. People have known for a long time that at the end of the road—they may have applied as a student and many times subsequently—making another asylum claim will effectively give them several more years in the country.
Ministers have much to say about unfounded cases, so one of the most effective actions that they could take would be to choke off unfounded in-country applications, often made in good faith on advice from solicitors. I know that Ministers have acted against the worst immigration-advising solicitors. One of the most effective weapons against ill-founded in-country claims would be to deal with delays.
Next week we expect—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the implementation of the system of voucher-based support for new asylum seekers, and forced dispersal, which were debated at length in Committee and on the Floor of the House. The Minister and her officials who have read Hansard will know that I contributed extensively to those debates. Over and over again, we were reassured by Ministers, "Yes, the voucher system amounts to less in total than income support"—that means people living below subsistence levels—"but only for two months initially and six months if there is an appeal." The argument behind the voucher system and forced dispersal is that people will be in the system only for short periods. Ministers promised that on the Floor of the House, and it provides another reason to focus on delays in dealing with asylum cases.
As I said earlier, the backlog of asylum cases has increased—almost doubled—during the Government's period of office. There have been some improvements. I understand that the most recently available monthly statistics show that the number of cases successfully dealt with increased from about 2,000 to 8,000 per month. The greater speed in dealing with new cases is obviously welcome but it does not help people who have been waiting in this country throughout the 1990s for their asylum cases to be dealt with.
One way of increasing the speed of dealing with new cases is to dish out a 14-page standard evidence form and not give people enough time to fill it in. When it is not filled in properly or gaps are left, a technical refusal is made. That amounts to pushing up the numbers by sleight of hand. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments about that.
Let me remind my hon. Friend the Minister, who is new to her position, of the commitment made by her predecessors to clearing up the backlog and reducing the time of decision making. Her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said on 4 May in the Special Standing Committee considering the Asylum and Immigration Bill:
Our target is to reduce the time … to two months for an initial decision and a further four months for an appeal.—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 4 May 1999; c. 1245.]
He later said:
The Government have committed themselves to reducing the time taken to process asylum applications. We have set the target of bringing that time down to six months and below.—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 18 May 1999; c. 1601.]

111WH
The Minister will also be aware of the report signed by management consultants brought in by the Home Office, which was published last year. It states:
At present, delays occur at each stage of the asylum process. These are primarily caused by; process inefficiencies, a lack of resources and a lack of cross directorate prioritisation. If there were no backlogs and adequate resources were available, we consider that process inefficiencies alone would prevent IND from achieving the two month target.
I now want to ask the Minister some specific questions. If she is unable to reply to them in our debate now, I would be grateful if she would write to me.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, in the rush of dealing with cases, there is an overwhelming presumption against many asylum applicants from countries that are democratic on the face of it—they have independent legal systems—but in which the reality on the ground is different? I am thinking of the treatment of Roma people in the Czech Republic, which is a democracy on the face of it, but allows Roma people to suffer constant race harassment and attacks. I am worried that hardly any Roma cases have been granted asylum because of the presumption to which I referred.
Ms Abbott: I agree with my hon. Friend. I, too, am deeply concerned. This morning, I met one of my constituents, a Jewish gentleman from Georgia—one of the former Soviet republics—who has applied for asylum here. He is an Orthodox Jew and wears the full costume of that religion. He has lived here for eight years. When he went back to Georgia, he was subjected to appalling harassment because those ex-Soviet republics have a history of antisemitism. However, technically, Georgia is a democracy. It issues statements declaring that it is against antisemitism, so the Minister has refused to grant this man asylum and he does not know what to do. He is being sent back to a society that has a history of persecution of Jews going back to the 19th century, but, on the basis of the technical nature of the state of Georgia and the statements of its Ministers, he is going back to certain persecution. I personally brought his case to the Minister's predecessor's attention and was extremely disappointed by the response.
We were promised in May last year that the backlog of cases would be cleared by April 2001. Is the Immigation and Nationality Directorate on target to clear the backlog by spring 2001? When we debated the subject of backlogs in waiting lists, and delays, we were promised by my hon. Friend's predecessor in Committee that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate was recruiting new staff. When I asked him how many new clerical staff would be recruited, he could not tell me. Can the Minister now say how many clerical staff have been taken on since May last year, which was the last time I raised the matter? If not, will she write to me? I should also like to know how many new decision makers have been recruited?
I would welcome any information about the position with the computer system. Many past delays have been connected with Siemens and the computers. Is it true, as my staff and I have been told, that new applicants for asylum will not be given a full interview until 2001? If so, that makes nonsense of the promises given to hon.
112WH
Members a year ago that the processing time for new claims would come down to two months. Are 29,000 asylum files to be sent to Glasgow? It seems extraordinary—given that, in the coming weeks, my colleagues and I will be asking questions about asylum seeker cases—that, during that time, the files will be somewhere on the Ml. If they are to be sent to Glasgow, when will they be returned so that work on them can begin?
The burden of my comments has been about the backlog of applications because I and other hon. Members know that an increasing number of asylum seekers have been waiting for some years for their applications to be determined.
I want to ask about the situation with travel documents. There used to be a same-day service for people seeking travel documents, but as far as I know it no longer exists. We hear constantly from constituents who have applied for travel documents. Recently, relatives of Turkish earthquake victims were unable to travel because they did not have documents. People who have to study, take jobs or attend funerals abroad have the same problem.
We have been told off the record by IND staff that the number of travel documents that are lost is a disgrace. Why, then, when departmental staff suggested that, as part of the process, people applying for travel documents be charged an extra fee to cover their return by recorded delivery, management turned it down? There would have been no cost to the IND and it seems a very practical suggestion that would have got round the problem of documents being lost, but management did nothing. When will the Government introduce an effective system for tracking lost travel documents? Staff have suggested to us that a bar code could be used. Each week in my advice sessions I see people who may have a family emergency or illness but are unable to travel because of what is happening in the travel documents section.
I have to touch on the general question of the ministerial case-working team. We understand that the team is only now dealing with letters sent to them in October and November. Members of Parliament have a democratic responsibility to take up issues on behalf of our constituents. It really is not good enough that the IND is only now dealing with cases that go back to October. We believe that there is no monitoring in the ministerial case-working team and that individual case workers have no targets. I think that I speak for every colleague who deals with nationality case work when I say that something must be done about the number of staff and, more importantly, about management, monitoring and targets, to enable Members of Parliament to obtain replies to their letters within a reasonable time.
When we write to the Department, we have to wait four or six months, or longer, for a reply. People come back to us week after week, but what are we to tell them? When a member of my staff asked a member of the ministerial case-working team, "How long is it taking you to deal with our letters?" he or she replied, "How long is a piece of string?" I put it to the Minister that that is not a satisfactory response to Members of Parliament who are trying to carry out their democratic duty.

113WH
My final point concerns the work-in-progress queue. The majority of the work with which my office currently deals relates to immigration and nationality matters, most of which involves asylum cases. We often find when we ring the Members' hotline that work is in the work-in-progress queue, so when my staff visited Croydon, we asked to see that queue. Let me tell hon. Members what the work-in-progress queue is. It is a basement in Croydon in which thousands of files are piled up. We were told that all work that was unfinished at the time of the move to C block from Lunar house—we know that the location has recently changed—was dumped in the basement. My members of staff saw those dumped files with their own eyes.
It is not good enough to tell Members of Parliament and their staff on the telephone that cases are in the work-in-progress queue when they are merely in a basement. If the Minister did not see those files on her recent visit to Croydon, she should return and ask to do so. We saw them.
Although I have expressed my concerns—which are shared by many other hon. Members—about what is happening, to the asylum backlog in particular but to immigration and case work generally, I pay tribute to the hard work of many of the members of staff involved. The Minister should encourage staff to make suggestions. We visited Croydon a week after she had been there, but staff told us that they were not encouraged to speak to her and that they felt that they could not make practical suggestions. Attitudes vary from team to team, but the teams to which I have specifically referred are well led and have enthusiastic and motivated staff. However, that was not true of all the staff who we encountered in Croydon.
During past months, there has been rising hysteria in the popular press about asylum seekers. Such hysteria sheds more heat than light on the subject. I could not leave the debate without putting on record my distaste for the tone in which politicians and the media discuss economic migrants. I entirely accept that many people who apply for asylum are not asylum seekers under the Geneva convention rules. However, to talk about people who have left collapsing economies, disease, dislocation and chaos and who are trying to do the best for their families as if they are a criminal underclass does no credit to the acute fears and pressures that sometimes force people to cross the globe to Europe to seek a better life for their children and families.
The Minister's family still lives in my constituency. With our background, she and I should have no truck with people who say not that asylum seekers do not meet the terms of the Geneva convention—we know that many of them do not—but that economic migrants are a sub-species of human being. Many asylum seekers have to be turned down at the end of the day, but their demonisation and the extent to which Ministers seem to think that they have to outbid the Conservatives on this issue cause great distress to many people. I suspect that those people include many of our supporters and constituents, who do not expect to hear Labour Ministers adopting the tone of Tony Ministers when speaking about asylum seekers.
The issue is complex. Next week, the Government's new support arrangements will be introduced, involving the voucher system and forced dispersal. I shall keep a
114WH
close eye on those arrangements; not only do I believe that they will cause unnecessary suffering, I am not persuaded that they will work. I wanted today to talk about the processing and management of claims in Croydon. The situation is not new and is not unique to this Government. Minister after Minister has investigated immigration and nationality and has been reassured by senior officials who say that this or that is being done. Year on year, myself and other hon. Members who deal with such case work see increasing chaos.
It is not too late for Ministers to tackle the problems. Some good initiatives have been started, but more are needed. It is unfair to asylum seekers, whether they are Geneva convention compliant or not, to engage in rhetoric about unfounded claims when the core function of Government—to deal with claims quickly, transparently, fairly and within the law—is not being carried out.
I await with interest the Minister's response to my specific questions, but she may rest assured that this is not the last occasion on which I shall raise the subject.
1.49 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I will start off on a note of agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), whom I congratulate on securing today's short but important debate. However, I take issue with the context in which she placed her concluding remarks. The Government want to honour our international obligations under the convention to those who flee persecution and seek asylum. The concept of asylum is an honourable and ancient one, which I, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Government want to preserve, but in order to do that we must say that those who make unfounded applications will be swiftly returned.
My hon. Friend omitted from her speech any reference to the worldwide criminal smuggling of people, which is helping many people to make large sums of money from others who are especially vulnerable. It is a pity that she did not mention that.
Ms Abbot: I did not mention worldwide smuggling because, as far as I understand, Ministers have no responsibility for that, so it would have been pointless to raise it.
Mrs. Roche: I believe that we have a responsibility for the consequences of smuggling and should try to combat it, along with other like-minded Governments. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be lucky enough to secure another debate in which to raise that issue, on which occasion I shall give her my full and considered response.
My hon. Friend is right to say that delays and perceived delays in the system encourage people to make unfounded claims, which is why certain measures have been implemented. She is also right to mention the role played by unscrupulous advisers and solicitors and to emphasise the need to eradicate backlogs from the system. I put on record my thanks to her for speaking about the hotline staff, and I am pleased about the visit that will take place. Let me assure her that I visit Croydon frequently; my route there is well worn. I am

115WH
virtually not only immigration Minister, but Minister for Croydon. I assure her that I encourage staff to speak to me and I visit all the teams. I recently attended the forum that has been set up to enable staff to speak to management. I also recently attended a meeting of the unions there, and I meet them regularly. There are no difficulties in that area.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Vantage point report. That report is fairly old, but we have recognised its recommendations. She also mentioned some recent cases. I believe that it is invidious to mention individual cases in this sort of forum, but I say to her and to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that such cases do not involve only a decision by the Home Office. A case goes to an adjudicator and to a tribunal both independent bodies set up by Parliament.
Mr. Corbyn: The issue of the perception of the human rights situation in various countries frequently arises. The Home Office was due to set up its own evaluation unit. I should be grateful to know what progress has been made on that and what assessment is made of newly democratised countries in which there are still human rights abuses.
Mrs. Roche: As my hon. Friend will know, we publish our country assessments, so they are available for everyone to see. We do not rely only on reports from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We also consult non-governmental organisations, Amnesty International, Oxfam and a range of organisations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington spoke about dealing with Members' asylum cases. She and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North will be pleased to know that we are setting up a case management unit specifically to deal with such cases. That will be warmly welcomed.
In the short time left to me, I shall deal with some of the difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington is quite right that the debate is about the present Government's record. However, we are still suffering from the plans made by the previous Administration to reduce the number of posts by a total of 1,200 in anticipation of the efficiencies that will result from the introduction of a computerised casework system. She will know that the Public Accounts Committee criticised that as an overambitious project. We are recovering from those plans. I know that much remains to be done by the present Administration, but we have done a lot already.
Last year, we began a substantial programme to increase the number of staff. That has already resulted in hundreds of additional staff, and more are planned. New working processes have been developed to speed up the time taken to decide applications without compromising quality. Those processes seek to obtain the maximum amount of information from applicants
116WH
at the outset. Pilot exercises at Heathrow and Dover are testing new procedures for port applicants. Substantive asylum interviews are conducted on the day of arrival, and an e-mail link to the Croydon computer system enables case papers to be sent electronically, which enables quick decisions to be taken.
Partly as a consequence of those changes, but also as a result of the massive intake of staff, the number of initial decisions has increased enormously. I do not know that only because I am a Minister. The profile of cases in my constituency is similar to my hon. Friend's, so I know the problem from my own case work. In February, 7,840 decisions were made—the highest monthly total ever recorded. As a result, the number of decisions now exceeds the number of new applications. The backlog of cases is therefore beginning to reduce.
The February total of just over 103,000 is still too high but, for the first time since March 1998, it has reduced. I am not complacent about that. There is much more still to do, but it is an improvement. We expect to make significant inroads into the backlog by late spring, and we aim for a substantial reduction by April 2001. We have all but cleared the backlog of pre-1993 cases, and we expect to clear the backlog of 1993–95 cases by the summer.
I reassure my hon. Friend on one point. She spoke about asylum cases being transferred to Glasgow. They are being transferred for recategorisation. That is necessary to allow us to reorganise about 29,000 cases in the case allocation unit so that we can identify work screens for them. However, that exercise will last for only three weeks; the files will be back in Croydon by 17 April. We want to speed up the work as much as we can.
My hon. Friend mentioned the targets for new cases, particularly new family cases, under the new scheme, which will be introduced on 3 April. We started using targets for new family cases at the beginning of November 1999, and we are already meeting those targets for new applications from families with children. The new processes and the increase in the number of staff are designed to ensure that, from April 2001, most new claims are decided within two months, as envisaged in the immigration and asylum White Paper. We are already doing exactly what we said that we would do.
There is a great deal of work yet to be done. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said about the commitment and enthusiasm of the staff, who are working incredibly hard against a difficult background. We are making progress, which is shown by the record number of decisions. We are beginning to deliver a policy that is firm, fair and fast, a policy that recognises the needs of genuine claimants while deterring those who would seek to abuse the system. Those who make unfounded claims are the enemy of the genuine asylum seeker.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the cost is of farm-scale trials of GM herbicide tolerant crops; what is the contribution from public funds; and what is the Government's policy with respect to funding such trials. [116689]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Farm-Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops are being organised by the Government, in conjunction with the industry body SCIMAC. SCIMAC are providing the required number of fields of GM crops and equivalent non-GM crops (the crops involved are forage maize, beet, spring and autumn sown oil seed rape). The Government are funding an independent research consortium to carry out ecological studies. The cost of the ecological studies is currently £4.4 million over the period March 1999 to December 2003.

  It is usually the responsibility of the organisation applying for consent to place GM crops on the market to provide evidence of environmental impact. This is likely to include the results of studies carried out to support that evidence. In the case of the GM herbicide tolerant crops involved in the Farm-Scale Evaluations programme, the Government and industry agreed that additional research on the environmental impact of growing and managing the crops was required before general cultivation could be contemplated. It was agreed that these studies would be jointly funded as described above. It is anticipated that, in future, applicants will include such evidence in their dossiers when making applications.

  The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment sub-group on Wider Biodiversity Issues, announced in February 1999, is working on guidance and criteria for carrying out such assessments in the future.

  Number Plates
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for new regulations relating to number plates. [117295]

  Mr. Hill
  The Department has recently concluded public consultation on proposals for new regulations relating to the display of vehicle number plates. Details of the Department's response in the light of the comments made will be placed in the Library of the House tomorrow.

  Two Metre Rule
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the environmental impact on(a) historic hedges and (b) wildlife of the implementation of the two metre rule for subsidies. [115542]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  This Department has held discussions with all the principal farming organisations and statutory environmental bodies on the issues mentioned by the hon. Member as well as with the European Commission.

  Last week my right hon. Friend the Minister reached agreement with the EU Agriculture Commissioner, Franz Fischler, that the United Kingdom should, for this year, apply the same criteria as were used in 1999 and earlier years for determining the acceptability of hedges and other field margins included in claims based on whole Ordnance Survey field areas under the Integrated Administration and Control System. For 2001 and subsequent years, MAFF will work with the Commission in order to clarify what types of margins are acceptable for inclusion in aid claims and identify ways of safeguarding environmentally valuable hedges so that we can reach a permanent resolution of this issue.

  Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many tonnes of methyl tertiary butyl ether were imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [116246]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) is not separately identified within the system for classifying products imported into the UK used by HM Customs and Excise. As such it is not possible to provide the information requested. However, we estimate that the average MTBE content in petrol in the UK is less than one per cent.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Killyleagh Sewage Works
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost of his plans to pump foul sewage from Crossgar to Killyleagh; what percentage of the capacity of Killyleagh Sewage Works is available; what percentage of Killyleagh Sewage Works would still be available if the sewage were pumped from Crossgar into Killyleagh Sewage Works; what representations he has received concerning the plans to pump sewage from Crossgar to Killyleagh; what consultation there has been with the residents and elected representatives of Killyleagh; and if he will make a statement. [116088]

  Mr. Ingram
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Water Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. Robert C. Martin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  133W
  Letter from Robert C. Martin to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 28 March 2000:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State a Parliamentary Question about Killyleagh Sewage Works. I have been asked to respond as Chief Executive of Water Service with operational responsibility for the provision of water and sewerage services.
  An appraisal of the options for improving wastewater treatment facilities at Crossgar concluded that the most cost-effective option was to pump wastewater from Crossgar to Killyleagh for treatment. The estimated cost of this is almost £1.6 million. The scheme will also help to improve the water quality in the River Quoile system.
  In undertaking the appraisal study, account was taken of projected residential and industrial expansion to the year 2021 on the basis of figures provided by the Department of the Environment's Planning Service. These figures allow for an additional 350 houses at Crossgar and 335 houses at Killyleagh. Following the closure of local industry, the wastewater treatment works in Killyleagh is currently operating at approximately 32% of its design capacity. After the transfer of the wastewater from Crossgar, and taking into account the projected increases up to 2021, the Killyleagh works will operate at approximately 71% of its design capacity leaving considerable surplus capacity for additional residential and industrial expansion.
  No significant development work is required at the Killyleagh Works. Indeed, the key changes envisaged are mainly of an operational nature. In these circumstances the residents of the Killyleagh area were not directly consulted about the project. However, Down District Council was consulted and we received a small number of written representations, about various aspects of the project, from public representatives including the constituency Member of Parliament, Mr. E. McGrady. Our proposals were fully explained to these public representatives.

  Childhood Funds
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if an application for a nursery unit at Kircubbin Integrated Primary School would be eligible for financial support from the childhood funds; and if he will make a statement. [116087]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No. The deadline for commitment of funds under the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation was 31 December 1999, and no new project could be approved at this stage.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at which locations nursery units have been provided with financial support from the childhood funds; how many of these units are associated with the Council of Catholic Maintained Schools; how many children of(a) Catholics and (b) Protestant background attend each of the units associated with the CCMS; and if he will make a statement on the impact of the EU package for peace and reconciliation on provision of cross-community nursery units. [116086]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Capital funds under the EU Childhood Fund were distributed on the basis of applications received and considered in the first place by the relevant Area Early Years Committee (AEYC), which made recommendations to the Department of Education. The Department considered and approved applications on the basis of whether the proposed provision: was sited where it would have maximum educational impact, in targeting area of greatest social/educational need; would create access for as many children as possible; and represented good value for money, taking account of viability considerations in particular.
  134W
  The deadline for commitment of funds under the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation was 31 December 1999.

  Nursery units have been provided or offered funding at the following locations under each tranche of the EU Childhood Fund:

  Tranche 1

  Ashlea Primary School, Londonderry

  Barrack Street Boys' Primary School, Strabane

  Bushmills Primary School

  College Farm Nursery School, Armagh

  Enniskillen Nursery School

  Glendermott Primary School, Londonderry

  Harpur's Hill Primary School, Coleraine

  Kilcooley Primary School, Bangor

  Old Warren Primary School, Lisburn

  St. James' Primary School, Whiteabbey

  St. John's Primary School, Carnlough

  St. Joseph's Primary School, Newry

  St. Patrick's Primary School, Castlederg

  St. Patrick's Primary School, Crossmaglen

  St. Patrick's Primary School, Cullyhanna

  St. Patrick's Primary School, Dungannon (one unit in the school, one unit in Ballysaggart estate)

  St. Patrick's Primary School, Newry

  St. Ronan's Primary School, Lisnaskea

  West Winds Primary School, Newtownards

  Tranche 2

  Holy Family Primary School, Magherafelt

  Kircubbin Community Nursery

  Limavady Nursery School

  Magherafelt Nursery School

  Newcastle Primary School

  North Lurgan Nursery School

  Portavogie Primary School

  St. Patrick's Primary School, Loughguile

  St. Peter's Primary School, Ardboe

  Tranche 3

  Annalong Primary School

  Bally ward/Drumadonnell

  Clonoe Nursery School

  Cookstown Nursery School (additional room)

  Edwards Primary School, Castlederg

  Killowen Primary School, Lisburn

  Longtower Primary School, Londonderry

  McKinney Primary School, Dundrod

  St. Laurence's Primary School, Fintona

  St. Patrick's Primary School, Rasharkin.

  Twenty-one of the projects are associated with the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools.

  In October 1999, the religious backgrounds of children attending each of the Tranche 1 nursery units associated with CCMS were as follows:
  135W

  School name

  Roman Catholic

  Protestant

  Other

  Total

  Barrack Street Boys' Primary School, Strabane

  52

  0

  0

  52

  College Farm Nursery School, Armagh

  51

  1

  0

  52

  Glendermott Primary School

  25

  0

  1

  26

  St. James' Primary School, Whiteabbey

  25

  46

  2

  73

  St. John's Primary School, Carnlough

  31

  1

  0

  32

  St. Joseph's Convent Primary School, Newry

  78

  0

  0

  78

  St. Patrick's Primary School, Castlederg

  51

  0

  0

  51

  St. Patrick's Primary School, Crossmaglen

  52

  0

  0

  52

  St. Patrick's Primary School, Cullyhanna

  26

  0

  0

  26

  St. Patrick's School, Dungannon

  72

  0

  1

  73

  St. Patrick's Primary School, Newry

  73

  0

  0

  73

  St. Ronan's Primary School, Lisnaskea

  50

  0

  0

  50

  The nine projects under Tranches 2 and 3 which are associated with CCMS have not yet opened.

  The EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation has facilitated the provision of several new cross-community nursery units and has provided a very welcome 14 per cent. increase in the availability of pre-school education across Northern Ireland generally. Many nursery units of all management types have an established pattern of cross-community attendance, and all funded pre-school education provision is and will continue to be open to children from all sections of the community.

  Early-day Motions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place a copy of his letter concerning an early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and others in the Library; and on how many occasions since May 1997 he or his predecessor has entered into correspondence about an EDM. [100175]

  Mr. Ingram
  A copy of my letter of 9 March 2000 to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has been placed in the Library. It is not appropriate to comment on correspondence between Ministers and hon. Friends.

HEALTH

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which health authority(a) more than 10 per cent. and (b) less than one per cent. of patients have been waiting for in-patient treatment for more than one year. [116068]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is given in the table.

  Waiting list at 31 January 2000

  Health authority

  Percentage waiting 12 months or more

  North Essex

  10.90

  Gloucestershire

  0.90

  Bradford

  0.90

  Solihull

  0.80

  Doncaster

  0.40

  Sunderland

  0.10

  Dorset

  0.04

  NHS Volunteers
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to implement the NHS Executive Working Party report entitled, "Making a Difference: Strengthening Volunteering in the NHS". [116443]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Executive has taken, and continues to take, action on the recom-mendations of the "Making a Difference: Strengthening Volunteering in the NHS" report. A response to the recommendations aimed specifically at the NHS Executive is summarised in Health Service Circular 1999–023, copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Scientific Staff
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review pay and grading of scientific staff in the NHS. [116441]

  Mr. Denham
  On 15 February 1999, the Department published proposals for modernising the National Health Service pay system in "Agenda for Change". Initial discussions with NHS trade unions on pay modernisation resulted in a Joint Framework of Principles and Agreed Statement on the Way Forward which was published on 8 October 1999. Negotiations continue, aiming for a pay system which pays fairly for work done, with career progression based on responsibility, competence and satisfactory performance.

  The National Advisory Group for Scientists and Technicians is collaborating with the professions to develop a human resource strategy that will underpin the career development of scientists in the NHS.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many board members he appoints to each non- departmental public body. [116337]

  Mr. Denham
  Full lists of the non-departmental public bodies to which my right hon. Friend makes appointments are published in "Public Bodies 1999" (ISBN 0 11 430159 X) and in the "Department of Health Public Appointments Annual Report 1999", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Severalls Hospital, Colchester
  Bob Russel
  l: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the sale of Severalls Hospital, Colchester. [116469]
  137W
  Mr. Denham
  Severalls Hospital land adjoins part of a larger developable site owned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Colchester Borough Council, Essex Rivers Healthcare National Health Service Trust and North East Essex Mental Health National Health Service Trust.

  In partnership with the trusts, the National Health Service Executive and National Health Service Estates are working to review the disposal strategy to maximise the income from the land sale to help meet the current and future healthcare need.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has made concerning the establishment of the Food Standards Agency; and if he will make a statement. [117044]

  Ms Stuart
  The provisions establishing the Food Standards Agency under the Food Standards Act 1999 are due to come into force on 1 April. The Food Standards Agency will act as a non-ministerial Department, which will be accountable to Parliament through Health Ministers. As of 1 April, I will have day-to-day responsibility for parliamentary business relating to food safety and standards matters, including questions from Members. I will also be responsible for dealing with relevant correspondence from Members of this House. Details of the Food Standards Agency's role and organisation will be placed in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Arson
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the report of the Scoping Study in relation to arson prevention in England and Wales. [117116]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am pleased to announce today that the Government have accepted all of the main recommendations of the Scoping Study.

  We have pledged quite clearly our determination and commitment to providing safer communities. The police and fire services have a vital role to play in helping to maintain a safer society, not just by reducing crime and the fear of crime, but also by reducing the number of deliberate fires and associated deaths and casualties.

  The report of the Arson Scoping Study was published last May and set out a series of recommendations aimed at addressing the growing problem of deliberate fires. The report was welcomed as an enormous opportunity for the Government and the police and fire services to reduce the pain and suffering caused by deliberately set fires.

  When the report was published we made it clear that we wanted to hear the views of chief officers, local authorities, the insurers and all those involved in the administration of justice, all of whom have a crucial role to play in translating the recommendations into action. I am pleased to say that the response to the Scoping Study has provided a strong mandate to carry forward all of its key recommendations and for a refocusing of efforts to prevent arson.
  138W
  I am writing to those same organisations today to explain how we intend to take the recommendations forward. In particular, I want to see the efforts of Government, police and fire authorities, the insurers and other local agencies integrated and co-ordinated as the Scoping Study recommended so that the whole effort achieves more than the sum of its parts. We shall be taking steps to put these arrangements in place shortly. I also accept, with the strong endorsement of the police and fire services and the insurers, the recommendation to create a new Government-led Arson Control Forum to take forward the arson prevention strategy.

  Arson prevention must become a core activity of the police and fire services and we must work in partnership with other agencies and with business to eliminate deliberately set fires. The success of this approach will mean a safer society for us all.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priorities will be set for placing juvenile offenders when the Detention and Training Order comes into operation. [117117]

  Mr. Straw
  The Detention and Training Order (DTO) will come into force on 1 April 2000. It will become the main custodial sentence for juvenile offenders aged 12 and under 18, replacing detention in a young offender institution for under-18s and the secure training order. Detention under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 will remain available for the minority of young offenders aged 10 and under 18 who commit grave crimes.

  Subject to parliamentary agreement to an Order laid on 27 March, for under-18s sentenced to custody under the DTO or section 53, and those remanded to Prison Service custody or direct to local authority secure accommodation, new, more co-ordinated arrangements for the juvenile secure estate will start operation in April. The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales will commission and purchase places from the Prison Service, the Secure Training Centre (STC) contractors and Local Authority Secure Units (LASUs). This will give it considerable influence over the management of custodial placements for under-18s, and enable more appropriate and cost-effective use of facilities. The Board has drawn up commissioning and placement strategies to support its proposed new role and a copy of these has been placed in the Library.

  Initially, there will be 13 Prison Service establishments holding under-18s, three STCs and 200 to 300 places the Youth Justice Board expects to purchase from LASUs, through current negotiations (LASUs have 480 places in total, but have to keep enough free for local authority placements for welfare purposes or for those placed in secure accommodation following a remand to ordinary local authority care). So altogether, there will initially be some 3,200 places for youth justice purposes.

  Of these places, 2,800 will be provided by the Prison Service. There is £51 million being invested in a substantial capital development programme throughout the juvenile estate, plus improvements in education, training and work designed to prevent re-offending and drawing on "what works" evidence-based research. This

  139W
  will, over time, make its establishments better equipped to deliver the acceptable and positive environment required to meet the needs of those held within them. However, the Government and the Youth Justice Board believe that further steps should none the less be taken to protect the most vulnerable under-18s. Within its total budget for secure placements in 2000–01, the Board will push this process as far as it can during the coming year, particularly in respect of the 100 girls under 18 serving custodial sentences.

  Beyond this, what the Youth Justice Board can do to move them elsewhere, and how quickly, depends on the numbers remanded and sentenced to custody by the courts and the physical and financial resources available to cater for them. If the numbers decline, the new powers will provide further opportunities to place more of these vulnerable young people in LASUs and STCs. In all placement decisions, the focus will be on matching the needs of individual young people to the available accommodation, based on the evidence of "what works", not least in reducing crime. The Board will monitor establishments' performance—within the Prison Service, LASUs and STCs—against service specifications to ensure regimes are of an appropriate standard and that the well-being of the young people is being properly addressed.

  As to future years, we have previously announced plans for two more STCs providing approximately 80 places. The Youth Justice Board will take over development work on these in April. We will be considering in this year's Spending Review what further provision should be made for new establishments to be commissioned by the Board.

  With the improvements to the quality of the Prison Service juvenile estate, the greater flexibility available to place DTO trainees and the consolidation of commissioning and purchasing responsibilities with the Youth Justice Board, the new arrangements represent a significant opportunity to drive up standards and place young people according to their relative needs in terms of welfare and action to prevent re-offending. I am confident that the Youth Justice Board, working with the various providers, will fully seize this opportunity.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 March 2000,Official Report, column 561W, on the Home Detention Curfew Scheme, if he will provide a breakdown by offence committed of the number of prisoners released listed under (a) other homicide and attempted homicide, (b) wounding, (c) assaults, (d) drugs, (e) other violence against the person and (f) other motoring offences. [116692]

  Mr. Boateng
  A breakdown of the first five categories of original offences in question committed by prisoners released up to 14 March 2000 under the Home Detention Curfew scheme, and the number convicted of each type of offence, are given in the table. A breakdown of the 1,530 offences listed as "other motoring offences" is not available centrally.
  140W

  Offence

  Number

  Other homicide/attempted

  Attempted murder

  5

  Making threats to kill

  29

  Conspire, aid, incite murder

  1

  Death by reckless driving

  115

  Total

  150

  Wounding

  Wounding (inflicting GBH)

  1,392

  Assault occasioning ABH

  819

  Assault with intent to cause GBH

  48

  Total

  2,258

  Assaults

  Assault with intent to resist arrest

  8

  Other assault

  335

  Obstruct/resist constable

  7

  Assault on police officer

  91

  Total

  441

  Drugs

  Production

  103

  Supply

  969

  Possession with intent

  1,238

  Possession

  396

  Unlawful import/export

  190

  Other drugs

  35

  Total

  2,931

  Other violence against the person

  Cause explosion, place explosive

  2

  Possess firearms with intent

  133

  Possess offensive weapon

  83

  Other violence against person

  17

  Total

  235

  Corporate Manslaughter
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will include in his proposals to combat crime further provisions relating to corporate manslaughter; and if he will make a statement. [116503]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government set up an inter-departmental working group of officials to consider the recommendations made by the Law Commission in their report number 237 "Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter". One of those recommendations was that there should be a new offence of corporate killing.

  The conclusions of the inter-departmental working group were passed to Ministers in late December and we are continuing to consider how to take the matter forward. We expect to publish our conclusions for consultation shortly.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter dated 22 February from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, regarding Samuel Adams. [115860]

  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 27 March.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is given to police officers on dealing with domestic violence; and if he will make a statement. [115915]

  Charles Clarke
  National Police Training (NPT) deliver training on domestic disputes and domestic violence during the Probationer Training Programme undergone by all recruits to the police service. This training is designed to make students aware of the legal framework within which they will operate, the role of the police service and other agencies, and the powers open to them.

  The National Operations Faculty, part of NPT, offers a three-day course at Bramshill called "Quality of Service to Women Victims of Domestic Violence". The course is open to senior police officers of the rank of Inspector and above and covers a range of issues including:

  the criminal victimisation of women;

  applying quality of service to the care of women victims;

  strategies to develop an appropriate response to domestic violence;

  current patterns of victimisation;

  role and status of women as victims;

  current legal remedies; and

  domestic violence and crime audits.

  NPT has just completed a Training Needs Analysis to establish whether additional training is needed in this area of policing. The results are expected shortly and will be taken forward by the National Operations Faculty and NPT as quickly as possible.

  Prisons (Reference Books)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requirement his Department imposes concerning the availability of updated legal reference books to prison inmates in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [116333]

  Mr. Boateng
  All prison establishments in England and Wales are required to make legal reference books available to prisoners. Prison Service Headquarters issue a mandatory list of publications to be held, which is currently being updated.

  Demonstrations
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on restrictions connected with demonstrations with placards within a one mile radius of the House of Commons. [116275]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are no general restrictions connected with demonstrations with placards within a one mile radius of the House of Commons. section 52 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 may be enforced when demonstrations may result in obstruction or disorder which may impede the free passage of Peers and Members to and from the Houses of Parliament on any day on which Parliament is sitting. Additional bye-laws apply within the Royal Parks and the Mall.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what privileges are granted to(a) convicted and (b) unconvicted remand prisoners; and if he will make it his policy that all remand prisoners should be treated for this purpose as unsentenced prisoners. [116286]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under the national policy framework for incentives and earned privileges, Prison Service establishments in England and Wales operate local schemes which allow all prisoners to earn a range of privileges through good behaviour and performance. They include enhanced access to private cash, visits, pay, in-cell television, association, and the right of prisoners to wear their own clothes.

  All unconvicted prisoners have certain minimum entitlements in view of their status. For example, they are permitted to have extra visits, letters and reading materials, to conduct business activities and to wear their own clothes. Incentive and privilege schemes for these prisoners must respect these minimum entitlements and provide further enhancements for good behaviour. We have no plans to extend unconvicted prisoners' privileges to convicted, but unsentenced, prisoners.

  Crimestoppers
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends taking to increase public confidence in, and awareness of, the Crimestoppers system of reporting suspected criminals; and if he will make a statement. [116465]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government fully recognise the valuable work that Crimestoppers does to help in the fight against crime. Ministers attend Crimestoppers Trust events to support its work as other commitments allow. At the recent London Board of Crimestoppers annual dinner, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary expressed his belief that all Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships should be aware of the potential benefits of involving Crimestoppers in their work when drawing up strategies. I intend to host a small seminar to discuss the possibilities of voluntary sector organisations such as Crimestoppers and Neighbourhood Watch working more closely together at local level to identify ways of increasing a more co-operative approach.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been arrested in each of the last five years as a result of information supplied to Crimestoppers; and if he will break down the categories of offence in respect of the most recent year for which figures are available. [116466]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  According to information supplied by Crimestoppers Trust, the number of people arrested and charged for each of the last five years as a result of information supplied to Crimestoppers was as follows:

  Year

  Arrested and charged

  1995

  3,355

  1996

  4,347

  1997

  4,726

  1998

  5,169

  1999

  5,300

  143W
  These figures can be broken down into the following categories for 1999:

  Crime

  Total arrested and charged

  Murder

  38

  Attempted murder

  22

  Rape

  13

  Robbery

  202

  Assault

  181

  Burglary

  338

  Firearms

  28

  Handling stolen goods

  209

  Drugs

  2,308

  Arson

  34

  Theft

  410

  Vehicle crime

  667

  Sexual assault

  18

  Fraud

  141

  Other crimes

  691

  Total

  5,300

  The total number of people arrested and charged as a result of information supplied to Crimestoppers for the period 1 January 2000 to 29 February 2000 is given as 842.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions he has met representatives of Crimestoppers. [116467]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary attended the London Board of Crimestoppers' annual dinner on 14 March and attended a lunch to promote Crimestoppers to the Asian Community in October 1998. In addition, Ministerial colleagues attended the Crimestoppers' Tenth Anniversary Ball in December 1998 and intend to visit the Crimestoppers Trust Head Offices in Putney in the next few months.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was allocated by the Government to fund Crimestoppers in each of the last five financial years for which figures are available. [116468]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No funding has been allocated by the Government to Crimestoppers in the last five financial years.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions in the last three months when powers under the Royal Prerogative were exercised on the advice of ministers. [113281]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: I regret that this information is not held centrally.

  Asylum Seekers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) of 23 March 2000,Official Report,column 672W, on asylum seekers, (a) for what reasons local authorities (i) claimed more than their gross expenditure and (ii) did not claim the full amount of their gross expenditure and (b) what estimate he has made of the cost to each local authority in the (1) 1999–2000 and (2) 2000–2001 financial years of
  144W
  providing support to asylum seekers which they are unable to claim from the Home Office under the grant rules and which has been or will be met from their own funds; and if he will make a statement. [116691]

  Mrs. Roche
  [pursuant to her reply, 23 March 2000, c. 672W]: The gross expenditure figure for East Sussex should read £279,979.

  Data are available for the 1999–2000 financial year only in relation to the period 1 April 1999 to 5 December 1999. The data for 6 December 1999 to 31 March 2000 are not yet available in full, as not all claims have been received from local authorities. For the period 1 April 1999 to 5 December 1999, those local authorities who received more than their gross expenditure (as defined in the grant report rules) did so as a result of allowable commissioning costs. The grant rules covering this period entitle local authorities to claim the costs involved in commissioning premises to be used to accommodate asylum seekers. At the discretion of the Secretary of State, payment of up to £10 per week for each person supported in such premises was available. The provision was taken up only by a small number of authorities. In some cases, local authorities could not be reimbursed the full amount of their identified gross expenditure for a number of reasons—for example, because they incurred expenditure on items which were not covered by the grant rules or had exceeded the unit costs limits set by the grant report. No estimate has been made for the whole of 1999–2000 and 2000–01 of the cost to each local authority of providing support to asylum seekers for which they are unable to claim from the Home Office under the grant rules.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason, in his Department's monthly asylum statistics published on 24 March, the number of asylum applicants(a) granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain and (b) refused, was listed as not available; on what data the figure for decisions in total was based, and for what reasons this could not be broken down by category; if monthly asylum statistics have been published previously without such a breakdown; and if he will make a statement. [116693]

  Mrs. Roche
  The figure for total asylum decisions in February was obtained from a manual count by caseworkers and is consistent with figures provided in previous months. A breakdown of decisions, by type, was not available in February due to the transition to a new computer system, the Asylum Cases Information Database (ACID). Although information on asylum decisions is satisfactorily recorded on this system for operational purposes, further quality checks are being carried out to ensure accurate statistical information is published.

  It is expected that a full breakdown of the decisions will be published in due course. A preliminary analysis has shown that the breakdown of decisions, for cases considered under normal procedures, in February was consistent with that seen in recent months with a high proportion of refusals of asylum. Monthly asylum statistics have not been published previously without such a breakdown.

  Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of
  145W
  22 March 2000, Official Report, column 559W, on release of prisoners, if he will provide a breakdown by type of offence of the additional prisoners he estimates would be released earlier than now as a result of the electronic monitoring provisions of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. [116690]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not possible to give such a breakdown at this stage. The new powers will be carefully tested in pilot schemes before they are made available, and it would be premature to judge the possible outcomes of those pilots. However, there is no question of electronic monitoring being used to facilitate the early release of sex offenders or other high risk offenders. The availability of electronic monitoring for such offenders will not influence the Parole Board when making decisions or recommendations on release. The Secretary of State will be issuing Directions to the Parole Board to make this clear, using the powers available to him under section 32(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  The measures in the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Bill will not change any prisoner's eligibility for release, and any discretionary release decision will continue to be subject to careful risk assessment. These proposals should provide additional protection for the public. High risk offenders—when eventually released at the end of their term in custody—could be made subject to electronic monitoring as a means of reinforcing curfew or exclusion conditions in their licences.

TREASURY

  Tax Credits
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  (1) what was the(a) average working families tax credit and (b) average child care tax credit payment per week for persons in (i) Inverclyde and (ii) Scotland in the past [115950]

  (2) what was the annual expenditure by Her Majesty's Government on (a) the working families tax credit and (b) the child care tax credit in (i) Inverclyde and (ii) Scotland in the past two years; [115951]

  (3) if he will estimate the number of families with children in (a) Inverclyde and (b) Scotland who are eligible for the working families tax credit; [115952]

  (4) how many persons in (a) Inverclyde and (b) Scotland are in receipt of (i) working families tax credit and (ii) the child care tax credit. [115953]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that 83,900 families in Scotland had been awarded the working families tax credit (WFTC) by the end of February 2000, of which 1,700 were in Inverclyde.

  About 8,900 of the awards in Scotland included a child care tax credit. There are too few cases in the 5 per cent. sample used for these analyses to provide a reliable estimate of the number of these in Inverclyde.

  The average value of WFTC awards made by the end of February 2000 in Scotland is estimated at £69.91 per week. For families with eligible child care costs, the average extra
  146W
  amount of WFTC arising from the child care tax credit is estimated at £28.63 per week. It is not possible to provide reliable corresponding estimates for Inverclyde.

  WFTC was introduced on 5 October 1999. It is estimated that expenditure in 1999–2000 on awards in Scotland will be about £80 million. Recalculating the awards excluding the child care tax credit would reduce this by about £5 million. It is not possible to provide corresponding estimates for Inverclyde.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  (1) what was the average(a) working families tax credit and (b) child care tax credit payment per week for people in Southwark in the last 12 months; [114836]

  (2) what was the annual expenditure by Government on (a) working families tax credit and (b) child care tax credit in Southwark in each of the last five years. [114837]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The working families tax credit (WFTC) was introduced in October 1999. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates of the average award, or expenditure, for Southwark. However, for the United Kingdom as a whole, the average value of WFTC awards made up to the end of February 2000 was £71.48 per week, and for London the average was £73.92 per week. For the United Kingdom as a whole, for those with eligible child care costs, the average extra amount of WFTC arising from the child care tax credit was £31.04 per week.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  (1) how many claims for working families tax credit have been received in each region; [110544]

  (2) what has been the average gain to working families from the working families tax credit in each region. [110545]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated number of awards of the working families tax credit made by the end of February 2000 by region are given in the table. Estimates of the average weekly gain for families in receipt of WFTC compared with Family Credit in a full year were given to my hon. Friend on 14 July 1999,Official Report,column 245W. Full year figures made on actual awards are not yet available.

  Government office region

  Number of WFTC awards made to end February 2000

  United Kingdom

  879,400

  England

  712,300

  North East

  52,300

  North West

  127,700

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  96,900

  East Midlands

  70,100

  West Midlands

  89,900

  East of England

  59,200

  London

  64,900

  South East

  80,100

  South West

  71,100

  Wales

  52,400

  Scotland

  83,900

  Northern Ireland

  30,700

  147W
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  (1) what estimate he has made of the impact of the working families tax credit on the income of a couple, both earning the minimum wage, and with two children under 11 years, where one parent works full-time and the other(a) full-time and (b) 16 hours per week; [106100]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the working families tax credit on the income of a couple, both earning the minimum wage, with two children under 11 years, where one parent works full-time and the other works (a) full-time and (b) 16 hours per week if the income were divided equally and the credit calculated on each half; [106101]

  (3)what estimate he has made of the impact of the working families tax credit on the income of a single parent, with two children under the age of 11 years, earning the minimum wage and working (a) full-time and (b) 16 hours per week. [106099]

  £ per week

  Couple, both working full-time

  Couple, one working full-time, one working 16 hours per week

  Lone parent working full-time

  Lone parent working 16 hours per week

  Gross earnings

  252.00

  183.60

  126.00

  57.60

  Earnings net of income tax and national insurance contributions

  231.67

  175.33

  117.73

  57.60

  Amount of working families tax credit

  25.13

  56.12

  87.80

  92.00

  The estimated expenditure on the working families tax credit for 2000–01, the first full year of the credit, is £4.7 billion. If each partner in a couple received the full amount of credits, and each had an award based on half the couple's earnings, then the expenditure would increase to over three times this figure. Lone parents would be unaffected.

  Heavily-indebted Poor Countries
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the HIPC II process at the G8 Summit in Okinawa. [116545]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer discusses progress on the HIPC initiative with G7 colleagues on a regular basis, and will do so at the G7 meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors on 15 April, and in the run-up to the Okinawa Summit.

  Heads of Government will, at the G8 Summit in Okinawa, discuss progress on implementing the enhanced HIPC initiative agreed at last year's Cologne Summit.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the World bank and IMF concerning the heavily-indebted poor countries due to qualify for debt cancellation by the end of 2000. [116546]

  Percentage

  Tax year/description

  Target set

  Achieved

  1997–98

  National Insurance contribution properly recoreded for 80 per cent. of appropriate notifications from employers in respect of Class 1 contributions by 31 December 1998

  80

  62.2

  National Insurance contributions properly recorded for 98 per cent. by 31 March 1999

  98

  85.9

  148W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The amounts of working families tax credit for 1999–2000 payable to those earning the minimum wage and with two children under 11 are given in the table.

  Amount of working families tax credit

  £ per week

  Couple:

  both working full-time

  25.13

  one working full-time, one working 16 hours per week

  56.12

  Lone Parent:

  working full-time

  87.80

  working 16 hours per week

  92.00

  Figures on gross earnings, and earnings after income tax and national insurance contributions were as follows:

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor and Secretary of State for International Development wrote to the Managing Director of the IMF and the Chairman of the World bank in January. In addition, the Chancellor will be holding discussions with the World bank and IMF during the course of the Spring Meetings next month, in his capacity as chairman of International Monetary and Finance Committee. The Secretary of State for International Development, as a member of the Development Committee, will also be discussing the issue of HIPC and progress on Poverty Reduction Strategies.

  National Insurance Contributions Office
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what target he has set the National Insurance Contributions Office for the prompt payment to the contracted-out money purchase pension schemes of the age-related element of NIC rebates; what proportion of payments met that target in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to date; and if he will make a statement. [115983]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 March 2000]:There is no target for the payment of age related rebates to contracted-out money purchase schemes. Rebate payments depend on the successful processing of employers' end of year returns.

  The targets set for processing of employers' End of Year Returns are as follows:
  149W

  Percentage

  Tax year/description

  Target set

  Achieved

  1998–99

  National Insurance contributions properly recorded for 80 per cent. of appropriate notifications from employers in respect of Class 1 contributions by 31 December 1999 and 93 per cent. by 31 March 2000

  93

  198.53

  1 To date

  Disincorporation
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he plans to take to reduce the tax burden of disincorporation; and if he will make a statement. [115240]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]:The Government have no plans to change the tax rules applying to disincorporation. Given the likely complexity, and length, of legislation needed to change the tax law affecting disincorporation there would need to be a strong case for making a change. Officials have consulted with representative bodies and other interested parties, but no strong case for change has so far emerged.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the reduction in tax paid per year in cash terms, and as a percentage of total gross annual income, for each income decile group, resulting from a 1p reduction in the basic rate of income tax. [114179]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]:This Government have introduced a range of measures designed to make work pay and to increase support for families with children, including the 10p starting rate of tax, the national minimum wage and the working families tax credit. The cut in the basic rate is another of those measures.

  For taxpayers in 2000–01, the estimates for the reduction in tax paid and reduction as a percentage of total gross annual income for each income decile group resulting from a 1p reduction in the basic rate of income tax are given in the table.

  Decile

  Reduction in tax paid from 1p cut in basic rate in 2000–01 (£ million)

  Reduction as a percentage of total gross income

  Lowest

  1—

  1—

  2nd

  25

  0.12

  3rd

  70

  0.27

  4th

  125

  0.39

  5th

  180

  0.49

  6th

  250

  0.56

  7th

  330

  0.62

  8th

  420

  0.66

  9th

  580

  0.71

  Highest

  720

  0.41

  1 Negligible

  Note:

  The estimates exclude an offsetting effect from the working families tax credit because this is allocated at family level and not at individual level.

  The estimates are based on the 1997–98 Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 1999 pre-Budget Report.
  150W
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would have been raised by one penny on the basic rate of income tax in (i) May 1997, (ii) May 1998 and (iii) May 1999; and if he will estimate the amount for May 2000. [112746]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In the March 1999 Budget material the tax ready reckoner was published on a pre-Budget regime basis. This showed a figure for changing the basic rate by 1p in 1999–2000 of £1.85 billion compared with the estimate based on the current regime of £2.5 billion.

  In the 1997 edition of Inland Revenue Statistics a figure of £1.8 billion was published for the full-year effect of a change in the basic rate of 1p in 1998–99.

  In the 1996 edition of Inland Revenue Statistics a receipts figure of £1.3 billion was published for the in-year effect for changing the basic rate by 1p in 1997–98. We would expect this to be much lower than the current full-year figure of £1.65 billion, because only around 88 per cent. of the full year would be received in year.

  Tax Benefit Reference Manual
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the latest edition of the Tax Benefit Reference Manual. [113578]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 8 March 2000]:The latest edition of the Tax Benefit Reference Manual, for 1999–2000, was placed in the Library in July 1999.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many (a) men and (b) women are single parents in the UK. [115917]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 20 March 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of single parents in the United Kingdom. I am replying in Dr Holt's Absence.
  Latest estimates for the period September to November 1999 show that there were 166,000 male and 1,490,000 female single parents with dependent children. The estimates are drawn from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) household databases. Lone parents are defined in the LFS as those who are non-married, which includes single (never married), widowed, divorced, or separated, and not cohabiting.

  PAYE
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the aggregate cost to the Inland Revenue of issuing notices of pay-as-you-earn coding prior to 6 April 2000 for the tax year 2000–01 for
  151W
  those aged 65 years and over which will have to be re-issued after 5 April 2000, in order to include an uplift in personal allowances as set out in section 257C TA1988. [115710]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no requirement to issue revised notices of PAYE codings solely to reflect any rise in the levels of personal income tax allowances announced in the Budget.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the interest on the revenue collected early from pensioners by the Exchequer through the temporary over-deduction of income tax caused by the Inland Revenue issuing pay-as-you-earn codings prior to 6 April 2000 for the tax year 2000–01 for those aged 65 years and over without taking account of section 257C TA1988. [115707]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Notices of coding issued to pensioners take full account of the requirements of sections 203 and 257C of the Income and Corporation Taxes Acts 1988.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, to prevent confusion, he will ensure that the only notice of pay-as-you-earn coding for the tax year 2000–01 pensioners receive before 6 April 2000 is based on the anticipated level of personal allowances for that year for those aged 65 years and over, increased as required by section 257C TA1988. [115708]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No. We believe that this would itself lead to confusion and, in some circumstances, could mean that people underpaid tax which had to be recovered.

  Finance Bill
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Bill will be published; and if he will make explanatory notes on the Bill's clauses available to hon. Members. [117043]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Finance Bill will be published on Friday 7 April. Explanatory Notes on the Bill's clauses will be placed in the Vote Office and the Libraries of both Houses that day. Members of the public will be able to obtain copies of the Explanatory Notes from the Treasury; these will also be available on the Treasury's Internet site (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk).

  Earnings (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of(a) men and (b) women living and working in the Greater London area who earn less than £4 per hour. [116321]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 27 March 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on workers living and working in London earning less than £4 per hour. I am replying in Dr Holt's absence.
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the ONS's major source of labour market data on individuals. It can provide information on the earnings of employees both by their region of workplace and their
  152W
  region of residence. In autumn (September to November) 1999 the number of male employees living and working in London earning less than £4.00 per hour was 102,000. The corresponding figure for female employees was 120,000.
  The LFS is the most appropriate source of data to answer this question. It provides fuller coverage of people on low pay than the other major source of earnings data, the New Earning Survey (NES). In addition the NES can only supply earnings information for the region of workplace of employees.

  Tax Relief (Pensions)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will break down the amount of tax relief for approved pension schemes by each category of scheme. [116322]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Available information on the breakdown of the costs of tax reliefs for approved pension schemes was published in table 7.7 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1999", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Software Provision
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to provide software to(a) self-employed persons and (b) small and medium sized businesses, to enable them to calculate money owed to Her Majesty's Government as a result of taxes (i) due from them and (ii) collected by them from their employees; and if he will make a statement. [116362]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Budget contained a number of substantial new measures to help small firms comply with their payroll obligations. They will be able to claim 100 per cent. Capital Allowances for investment in Information and Communications Technology equipment, and will be eligible for discounts for internet filing and the use of Internet payroll services. A £60 million package of measures will help them get on-line and use on-line services. And the Inland Revenue Payroll Software Standard will further encourage small employers to use software packages, Internet payroll services and payroll bureaux to calculate their payroll.

  Banking Services
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what incentives the Government will propose to encourage wider use of banking services among benefit claimants. [116366]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government wish to encourage banks to develop basic bank accounts suitable for those who are financially excluded. From 2003 to 2005 the DSS will move progressively to the use of automated credit transfers to make benefit payments into bank or building society accounts. People who wish to continue to collect their cash at post offices will continue to be able to do so, before and after the change in 2003.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many adults purchased no banking services(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) within Scotland in each of the last three years. [116367]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Various surveys indicate that the percentage of adults in the United Kingdom who have neither a current account nor a savings account is in the range 2.5 to 3.5 million. Figures supplied by the Association for Payment Clearing Services in respect of
  153W
  Great Britain and Scotland, for adults aged 18 and over without a bank, building society or National Savings account are as follows:

  Thousand

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  1997

  2,222

  271

  1998

  2,331

  286

  1999

  2,381

  312

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts Council
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many employees the Arts Council of England(a) has currently, (b) had on 1 May 1997 and (c) had on 1 May 1999. [116540]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 28 March 2000): The number of full-time equivalent employees of the Arts Council of England was: 240.52 in May 1997; 278.3 in May 1998; 212.7 in May 1999; and 204.5 in March 2000. The Arts Council's staff numbers rose between May 1997 and May 1998, largely because of the operation of the Lottery Arts4Everyone programme, a major lottery revenue programme run centrally by the Arts Council of England.

  Arts Boards
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the number of employees(a) currently, (b) in May 1997 and (c) in May 1999 of each of the regional arts boards.[116539]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 28 March 2000]: I have asked the Arts Council of England, as the body responsible for the regional arts boards, to provide this information. When it is available, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Quigley Committee
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the report of the Quigley Committee. [117208]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I established a committee under the chairmanship of Sir George Quigley in December 1998, as required by section 25(4) of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, to review fee support for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the fourth year of first degree courses at Scottish institutions. The report is laid today before Parliament and placed in the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament.

  I welcome the report and congratulate Sir George and the other members of the committee on their thorough examination of all the relevant issues. The Government accept the recommendations addressed to it set out in the
  154W
  report. The Scottish Executive has accepted that it should meet the net costs of the tuition fees of students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland in their fourth year in Scottish universities.

  The Government will discuss with the Executive the precise mechanism for paying those fees and the impact on student support. I expect this to come into effect for students who enter the first year of their courses in September 2001.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many board members he appoints to each non-departmental public body. [116339]

  Mr. Wills
  A full list of the non-departmental bodies to which the Secretary of State makes appointments can be found in the document "Public Bodies 1999" (ISBN 0-ll-430159-X), copies of which are available in the House Library.

  "Computers for Teachers"
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to include school librarians in the Computers for Teachers scheme; and if he will make a statement. [115591]

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to classify school librarians as teachers for the purposes of the Computers for Teachers initiative. [115810]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 22 March 2000]: The scheme, as currently constituted, is focused upon serving teachers in state maintained schools. Schools have a legal obligation to teach Information Technology, both as a curriculum subject in its own right and across all other subjects. The burden of this teaching role falls largely upon the classroom teacher.

  In order to provide teachers with the skills to discharge this responsibility, the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) ICT Training programme was developed specifically for teachers in schools, and it aims to give serving teachers the opportunity to raise their pedagogical capability to that now required of newly qualified teachers. The purpose of the Computers for Teachers initiative is to complement that training by raising teacher competence and confidence in their personal use of ICT. Given the access which school librarians generally have to ICT within the school library, the Government have decided to give priority for the funding available under this initiative to teachers.

  Departmental Staff
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provisions are made available to (i) departmental staff and (ii) employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department, for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contract, (l) child care allowances, (m) careers' leave and (n) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [108843]
  155W
  Mr. Wills
  The following provisions are made available to departmental staff and employees of executive agencies (the Employment Service) under the control of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment:

  (a) Maternity Leave

  All employees are entitled to Statutory Maternity Leave of 18 weeks (for women with an expected week of childbirth on or after 30 April 2000. Before this date the entitlement is 14 weeks). Permanent employees are entitled to 52 weeks maternity leave provided they intend to return to work after the birth, are in paid service when the maternity period begins, and agree to refund any Departmental Maternity Pay (see below) if they do not return.

  (b) Maternity Pay

  All employees are entitled to Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) for 18 weeks provided they fulfil the statutory requirements. Permanent employees who fulfil these requirements plus have one year's paid service are entitled to Departmental Maternity Pay (16 weeks at full pay) plus two weeks at SMP.

  (c) Paternity Leave

  Men are entitled to five days paid paternity leave which can be taken at or around the birth of the child.

  (d) Parental Leave

  Entitlement to Parental Leave follows the recently introduced regulations and parents of children born or adopted on or after 15 December 1999 are entitled to 13 weeks unpaid leave in blocks of weeks (limited to four in any year) for up to five years following birth or adoption. Parents of disabled children are entitled to the leave in days rather than weeks and up to the child's 18th birthday.

  (e) Flexible Working Hours

  Most people work flexi-time but have the option to work a set pattern of hours. Whatever pattern is worked, full-time employees are paid a salary that includes a paid lunch break. The full-time conditioned hours of work are 42 (London pay area 41) hours over a five day week, Monday to Friday (this includes a paid lunch break of one hour a day). The hours of work for people who work part-time will vary and will be agreed with their manager. The hours do not include a paid lunch break but the hourly rate is higher to compensate. Individuals have the right to use the Flexible Working Hours (FWH) scheme if one is operated within their office.

  (f) (g) Part-time Work or Job Sharing

  Part-time working or job sharing is generally open to anyone (subject to operational needs). All vacant posts are regarded as being open to people who work part-time or job share unless it is specifically stated otherwise in the vacancy notice. However, this is currently under review in the DfEE.

  (h) Leave to care for sick children

  The Employment Relations Act provides for individuals to apply for emergency leave to deal with events such as dependants being ill. DfEE and ES complies fully with the new and revised regulations.
  156W
  (i) Homeworking

  In DfEE homeworking is open to all staff. Managers must consider the needs of the individual applying to work from home, including the individual's welfare, the operational needs of the team and environmental issues such as health and safety. As ES is largely a front line organisation, homeworking will be relevant only to a small range of jobs within ES and operational requirements will need to be considered. For the majority of ES employees this flexibility may be considered only for small periods of ad hoc at-home working.

  (j) Term Time Contracts

  Part year appointments (of which term time is just one option) are open to all employees. Managers should try wherever possible to accommodate individuals' requirements. If however, having assessed all possible options, to do so would leave the office operationally deficient, managers have the right to refuse an application.

  (k) Annual Hours Contracts

  Annual Hours Contracts are not operated within the DfEE or Employment Service.

  (l) Child Care Allowances

  Child care subsidies are payable in certain circumstances (although child care allowances as such do not operate within DfEE or Employment Service). Where a business case supports the provision of nursery/playscheme places in a specific location a subsidy may be payable. Additional child care costs are reimbursed where staff have to work longer than their normal hours. DfEE is currently developing its child care policy and looking at ways of extending child care provision. In particular it is working towards improving equity on all four Head Office sites. User-friendly child care information is being developed to assist parents in finding the information they need on child care provision, both within and outside the Department.

  (m) Careers Leave

  This is not a term the DfEE or ES recognises, how ever, if my hon. Friend means leave to work in other organisations, the DfEE and ES operates loan/secondment/attachment schemes to outside organisations where there will be a possible business benefit to either organisation. If my hon. Friend means leave to pursue further education to enhance career prospects, individuals can apply for special leave to study for qualifications linked to their field of work.

  (n) Career Break

  A career break allows individuals to take an extended period of leave to cope with domestic responsibilities. This may be to care for young children, elderly or sick relatives. This allows individuals to preserve their career in the DfEE and ES and allows the organisation to retain skills and experience. Career breaks are taken as special unpaid leave and are classed as continuous employment. A career break may be allowed for a minimum of six months up to a maximum of five years. Individuals may take more than one career break or extend a career break, provided the period of absence does not exceed a total of

  157W
  five years. Applicants must have a good attendance record and a "satisfactory" marking on their most recent annual report.

  Robert Schuman Week
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on planned United Kingdom participation in Robert Schuman Week. [115546]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the week commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Robert Schuman Declaration, the UK will be participating in "my EUROPE week", organised by the European Schoolnet, a joint initiative of 20 European Ministries of Education.

  UK participation is being organised by DfEE.

  Capital Funding
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money to date has been allocated to each higher education institution from the Joint Infrastructure Fund for capital projects; and how much remains unallocated. [116488]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Joint Infrastructure Fund (JIF) awarded just over £150 million to 22 universities in Round 1 and £320 million to 27 universities in Round 2.

  Headline details for Round 3 will be announced on 4 April 2000. Bids to Round 4 will be considered in November 2000 and bids to Round 5 will be considered in March 2001.

  The amounts awarded to each institution in Round 1 are listed in the table. The awards for Round 2 are still subject to negotiation to ensure best price and value for money for the funds approved. Final figures for Round 2 and Round 3 will be available as soon as those negotiations have been completed.

  Institution

  Value of awards (£ million)

  Cambridge

  30.4

  Queen Mary and Westfield College

  24.8

  Oxford

  17.9

  Imperial College, London

  11.3

  Birmingham

  11.1

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  6.6

  Edinburgh

  6.3

  Liverpool

  6.1

  Nottingham

  5.0

  Surrey

  4.7

  Newcastle

  4.4

  Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre

  3.9

  Southampton

  3.8

  University of Wales, Bangor

  2.8

  Leeds

  2.4

  Glasgow

  2.1

  Bristol

  2.0

  Manchester

  1.8

  Strathclyde

  1.2

  Warwick

  1.0

  Lancaster

  0.6

  Queen's University, Belfast

  0.4

  Total

  150.4

WALES

  Taskforces
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the Government taskforces selecting to Wales and their members in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994, (d) 1995, (e) 1996, (f) 1997, (g) 1998, (h) 1999 and (i) 2000. [116325]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Office Running Costs
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the cost for the current financial year of running the office of the Secretary of State for Wales. [116328]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The running costs budget for the Wales Office is £2,030,000 for 1999–2000, including Lord Lieutenants' expenditure.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the prospects for the steel industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [116232]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am extremely optimistic about the future of the Welsh steel industry, particularly in light of the substantial restructuring the UK steel industry has undergone making it among the most efficient and cleanest in the world.

  Naturally the Government keenly maintain an on-going dialogue with the steel industry.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will bring forward legislation to empower the National Assembly for Wales to amend those Acts which have effect in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [115954]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  A general power for the Assembly to amend Acts of the UK Parliament having effect in Wales would be unconstrained and inconsistent with the devolution settlement for Wales.

  There are, and will continue to be, occasions when it is appropriate to give the National Assembly a power to amend Acts of Parliament for particular purposes. Powers of this kind are included in the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Health Act 1999 and also in the Care Standards Bill, the Local Government Bill and the Transport Bill.

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what figures he can require from local authorities about the composition of their workforces in terms of(a) standard age groups, (b) ethnic origins and (c) gender. [104014]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I do not have executive functions which would require me to seek this kind of information from local authorities. My statutory powers to obtain
  159W
  information from local authorities were transferred to the National Assembly for Wales by the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 No. 672. Among these powers is section 141(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 which allows the Assembly to require any information held by or available to a principal council in consequence of the exercise of any of the council's statutory powers.

DEFENCE

  AWE Sites
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on what arrangements have been made to operate the Atomic Weapons Establishment sites at Aldermaston and Burghfield from 1 April. [117045]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 21 February 2000,Official Report, column 1223, that we were reviewing the AWE contract to operate Aldermaston and Burghfield to ensure the pre-eminence of public health and safety. The Government have always made it clear that we would not allow the AWE Management Ltd. consortium to take over the operation of AWE unless we were convinced that safety would not be compromised.

  As part of this review each nominee for a director's post at AWE was checked for suitability and to confirm they were not connected with any of the incidents that have caused concern at Lockheed Martin's US facilities or to problems at BNFL Sellafield. The Chief of Defence Procurement also carried out a detailed scrutiny of the terms and conditions of the contract placed with AWE ML. He has confirmed that safety was treated as the highest priority.

  The Chief Executive of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) has also confirmed that he is satisfied with the ability of AWE ML to operate the sites safely and effectively. He has therefore issued new nuclear site licences. The Environment Agency (EA) has already granted new site discharge authorisations under the Radioactive Substances Act to take effect from 1 April. As a condition of this the EA require AWE ML to submit a report by 30 April 2000 of any proposed changes to the existing management systems and resources and not to implement any changes without the prior consent of the EA. The NII and EA will of course continue to monitor rigorously the safety performance of the new company. Both have also agreed separately to carry out in-depth reviews of all aspects of safety at AWE and to issue public reports after three and 12 months.

  Hugh Collum, the new Chairman of BNFL, is currently preparing a report for the Department of Trade and Industry on management and organisation at Sellafield and he has assured us that there will be nothing in his review that could reasonably be read as detrimental to the safe operation of AWE. The NII has also assured the MOD that the problems experienced at Sellafield will have no application to BNFL's proposed role as a shareholder in the AWE ML consortium.
  160W
  A strict and comprehensive safety regime already exists, monitored by MOD officials as well as the EA and NIL All three authorities carry out regular inspections and have the powers to scrutinise any paperwork, interview any individual, and visit any of the facilities at Aldermaston or Burghfield. They have the authority to close down any part or all of the facilities for whatever reason should safety be put at risk. AWE ML does not have the authority to alter significantly the existing operating procedures without first seeking the approval of the regulators.

  In view of the satisfactory outcome of these checks along with the effectiveness of the existing safety regime at AWE, we are satisfied that safety will not be compromised by the implementation of the new contract. This is also the opinion of the EA and the NIL Accordingly, we have decided that AWE ML will take over operation of the AWE sites as from 1 April 2000. However, we will continue to scrutinise closely the safety performance of the new management. We will also be looking to the new operators to preserve and, where possible, extend the policy of openness adopted by Hunting BRAE over the last seven years.

  German Army
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the benefits to the United Kingdom of the German Army joining the L15A4 projectile programme; and if he will make a statement. [113899]

  Dr. Moonie
  None. We are currently in the process of procuring the L15A3 155 mm high explosive artillery shell as part of a five year large calibre training ammunition contract which was placed with Royal Ordnance in December 1998. An assessment of possible options for a new generation of high explosive shell to replace existing L15A2 and A3 shells has not yet been undertaken. We do not therefore have an approved L15A4 projectile programme, but any future procurement of a replacement for our existing L15 shells would examine all options, including collaboration.

  Landmines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies his Department has carried out into the movement of anti-personnel landmines in flood waters. [114370]

  Mr. Spellar
  None. My Department is keeping the possible requirement for such studies under review.

  Armed Forces Personnel
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people left(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998 and (iv) 1999. [116326]

  Mr. Spellar
  The total number of people leaving the UK Regular Forces in 1996–99 is as follows:
  161W

  Army

  Naval Service

  RAF

  1996

  15,368

  7,123

  10.542

  1997

  13,993

  5,263

  7,512

  1998

  17,074

  5,508

  4,838

  1999

  15,951

  5,889

  4,712

  The titles Army, Naval Service and RAF include Nursing Services. Naval Service includes Royal Navy and Royal Marines.

  These figures are taken from Tri-Service Publication 1, which is available in the Library of the House.

  University Cadetships
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the average amount of money that has been expected to have been paid back by service personnel in the last 10 years in the(a) Royal Navy, (b) Army and (c) RAF who have received university education through cadetships and have subsequently left before completion of service; how this sum of money is calculated; and if he will make a statement; [116511]

  (2) how many (a) Army, (b) RAF and (c) Navy personnel who were awarded cadetships in the last 10 years and subsequently left before completion of service were required to pay back money received for university education; how much money was expected to be paid back; how many cadets were required to pay the full amount; and if repayment was weighted against the time that they served; [116515]

  (3) how many people were recruited into the (a) RAF, (b) Army and (c) Royal Navy on cadetships and how many of them (i) had their fees paid and (ii) received a salary, in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [116512]

  (4) what are the conditions relating to the award of cadetships in the (a) RAF, (b) Navy and (c) Army when students join the services, have their fees and a grant paid to them while completing university and then subsequently leave the force; what is his policy on the repayment of such funds by cadets if they leave before completion of service; and if he will make a statement; [116513]

  (5) how many (a) Army, (b) RAF and (c) Royal Navy personnel who were awarded cadetships in the last 10 years subsequently left before completion of service; [116510]

  (6) on what occasions in the last 10 years Army personnel leaving other than on health grounds were allowed to forgo repayment of money received from the Army for the cost of university education. [116559]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and copies of my letters will be placed in the Library of the House.

  South Korea (Joint Military Exercise)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British forces are involved in the proposed joint military exercise with South Korea in June 2000. [116666]
  162W
  Mr. Spellar
  There are no plans for British forces to conduct a joint military exercise with South Korea in June 2000. However, we will be conducting a short maritime exercise with the South Koreans in late August/early September as part of the Naval Task Group Deployment to the Far East (NTG 2000).

  Territorial Army (Working Time Directive)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice he has issued to the Territorial Army on compliance with the Working Time Directive. [102901]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 20 December 1999]:I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 27 March 2000, Official Report, column 28W.

  Cadets (Seatbelts)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department issued instructions that Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force cadets must not travel in 4-tonne trucks or other military vehicles without seatbelts; and what assessment he has made of the impact of this ruling on(a) cadet training and (b) cadet financing. [107642]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 27 March 2000, Official Report, columns 25-26W.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on developments over the last three years in Incapacity Benefit, including(a) the total number of claimants by quarter, (b) the number of appeals and (c) changes in the qualification criteria. [116487]

  Mr. Bayley
  Information on numbers of claims and appeals is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the tables. There have been no changes to the qualification criteria for Incapacity Benefit in the last three years.

  We are committed to removing barriers to work. We have introduced the New Deal for Disabled People, funded by £195 million from the Windfall Tax, which is helping disabled people to move into, or remain in, work. From October 1998 we introduced a new rule allowing people who leave incapacity benefits for work to return to their old rate of benefit if they have to stop working and make a reclaim within a year, and we removed the 16 hours a week restriction on voluntary work. In April 1999 we raised the limit on earnings for those doing therapeutic work from £48.00 to £58.00 a week. We are also currently piloting a range of measures to help sick and disabled people to return to work and from next month those on incapacity benefits will be able to take part in Work Trials or Work Placements without losing their benefit entitlement.

  From 3 April the All Work Test for incapacity benefits will be replaced by the Personal Capability Assessment, which will focus not just on what people cannot do but also on what they are able to do despite their illness or

  163W
  disability; this will help Personal Advisers give people the assistance they need to return to work where that is what they want to do. In the coming year we will also be mailing initiatives to ensure regular contact with people on incapacity benefits to check their circumstances, give benefits advice and offer assistance with a return to work.

  From April 2001, we will introduce further changes. The contribution conditions for Incapacity Benefit will be modernised to ensure a closer link between benefit entitlement and recent work; some account will be taken of occupational and personal pensions, to reduce duplicate provision between the State and employers or individuals; and people disabled in youth, who have never had the opportunity to work, will be able to qualify for Incapacity Benefit without having made National Insurance contributions.

  Number of claims to Incapacity Benefit in each quarter ending

  Number

  30 November 1996

  276,343

  28 February 1997

  269,062

  31 May 1997

  258,985

  31 August 1997

  255,657

  30 November 1997

  259,671

  28 February 1998

  238,514

  31 May 1998

  226,137

  31 August 1998

  232,210

  30 November 1998

  242,930

  28 February 1999

  224,952

  31 May 1999

  230,059

  31 August 1999

  230,503

  Note:

  Includes claims that are subsequently withdrawn and accident declarations (which are made in case a claim to benefit becomes necessary at a later date as a result of an industrial accident).

  Source:

  100 per cent, clerical count.

  Number of appeals

  Number

  1996

  62,303

  1997

  76,132

  1998

  79,800

  Sources:

  Data up to July 1997—100 per cent, extract from ITS computerised records

  Data from August 1997—100 per cent, download from the Generic Appeals Processing System (GAPS)

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have claimed disability living allowance in each quarter of the last three years. [116554]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Number of claims made for disability living allowance

  Quarter ending

  Claims

  1997

  March

  124,281

  June

  132,092

  September

  121,067

  December

  110,813

  164W

  Number of claims made for disability living allowance

  Quarter ending

  Claims

  1998

  March

  97,387

  June

  96,125

  September

  103,061

  December

  96,022

  1999

  March

  103,069

  June

  98,997

  September

  97,542

  December

  91,311

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the success rate of applications for Disability Living Allowance has been for(a) schizophrenia sufferers, (b) all categories of people suffering from mental illness and (c) all applicants for each of the most recent five years for which figures are available. [116514]

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

  Applications for disability living allowance

  Year

  All decisions

  Successful decisions

  Percentage successful

  1995

  501,247

  248,017

  49

  1996

  523,812

  246,173

  47

  1997

  486,566

  220,228

  45

  1998

  391,583

  178,802

  46

  1999

  373,645

  176,371

  47

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data.

  Retirement Pension
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve the time it takes to calculate the state retirement pension for those in their final year of work. [116363]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are no plans to improve the time it takes to calculate the state retirement pension for those in their final year of work. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 25 January 2000,Official Report, column 168W, relating to the time scales for processing claims to retirement pension.

  Radiation Exposure (Compensation)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) former service personnel and medical auxiliaries and (b) members of their families, have made appeals to the Pensions Appeals Tribunal for compensation due to exposure to radiation from British nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific since 1970; how many have been awarded compensation; how many are awaiting adjudication; and if he will make a statement. [116014]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of War Pensions is a matter for Gordon Hextall, Chief Executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.
  165W
  Letter from Gordon Hextall to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 28 March 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many (a) former service personnel and medical auxiliaries and (b) members of their families, have made appeals to the Pensions Appeals Tribunal for compensation due to exposure to radiation from British nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific since 1970; how many have been awarded compensation and how many are awaiting adjudication.
  The War Pensions Agency processes claims for war disablement pensions, war widows and other dependants' pensions and associated supplementary allowances under the provisions of the War Pension Scheme.
  Details of claims relating to exposure to radiation in certain sites, including the South Pacific, are recorded on a radiation database. The earliest date of appeal recorded on the database is 1989. The database shows that from that date 57 service personnel and 31 widows have made appeals to the Pensions Appeal Tribunals. At the 22 March 2000 there have been 27 appeals allowed by the Tribunal of which 21 were former service personnel and 6 were widows. There are currently 5 appeals awaiting adjudication, 4 from former service personnel and 1 widow.
  I am sorry to tell you that information relating to appeals in respect of exposure to radiation made before 1989 is not readily available and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.
  If I can be of any further assistance then please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many mothers he estimates will benefit from the Sure Start maternity grant in(a) Barnsley and (b) Doncaster. [116079]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Social Fund is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jeff Ennis, dated 28 March 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many mothers he estimates will benefit from the Sure Start Maternity Grant in (a) Barnsley and (b) Doncaster.
  An estimate is not available in the format requested. It is expected that the Sure Start Maternity Grant (SSMG) take-up will be at approximately the same level as the existing Social Fund Maternity Payment, though because Working Families Tax Credit gives qualification to more mothers than Family Credit did, there could be a small rise.
  The smallest unit for which we can supply information is at the level of the BA district. Both Barnsley and Doncaster are in the South East Yorkshire District, which also includes Goole. Such information as is available is in the attached table.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Social Fund Maternity Payments/SSMG estimate in South East Yorkshire

  Year

  Number

  1997–98

  2,060

  1998–99

  2,150

  1999–20001

  1,773

  2000–012

  2,495

  1 To February 2000

  2 Estimate

  Notes:

  1. The figures do not distinguish male and female applicants.

  166W

  2.The 1997–98 figure is the total of the figures for Barnsley (799) and the former South East Yorkshire District (1,261) which were then separate.

  3.Goole was not included until 1998–99. It was formerly a part of the East Yorkshire district. Separate figures are not available.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in(a) the Torbay constituency and (b) Torbay Unitary Authority are in receipt of the minimum income guarantee. [116447]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency to answer. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Adrian Sanders, dated 28 March 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many pensioners in (a) the Torbay constituency and (b) Torbay Unitary Authority are in receipt of the minimum income guarantee.
  The minimum income guarantee relates to Income Support (IS) pensioners aged 60 and over.
  The information is displayed in the table attached.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Income Support pensioners aged 60 and over, by parliamentary constituency/local authority—November 1999

  Thousand

  Area

  Pensioners aged 60 and over

  Torbay parliamentary constituency

  4.9

  Torbay Unitary Authority

  6.0

  Notes:

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

  2. Pensioners are defined as benefit units where either the claimant and/or their partner are aged 60 years or over.

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands.

  Source:

  Income Support quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 1999.

  Benefits Agency Staff
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many visiting officers there are in each Benefits Agency in Scotland; [116558]

  (2) what was the cost of travel and subsistence for officers based in Edinburgh visiting clients throughout the rest of Scotland for each of the last three years; how many visits were involved and to what destinations. [116521]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Andrew Welsh, dated 28 March 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking for the cost of travel and subsistence for officers based in Edinburgh visiting clients throughout the rest of Scotland for each of the last three years; how many visits were involved and to what destinations. Also, how many visiting officers there are in each Benefits Agency (BA) office in Scotland.
  The BA does not hold data on the cost of travel and subsistence by geographical location. Most visiting officers are based in District Offices and do not make visits outside their home areas. Officers based in Edinburgh who visit customers outside the Edinburgh area

  167W
  provide the Benefits Agency's Out of Hours Service (OOHS) and the Benefit raud Investigation Service (BFIS). Their travel and subsistence costs cannot be broken down for visiting officers as they are aggregated across the Agency. Figures would include travel for other official duties such as training courses and meetings.
  The Disability Carer Benefits Directorate (DCBD) has calculated travel and subsistence costs of *8976.24, for the period from April 1999 to date, for their officers in Edinburgh visiting customers throughout Scotland.
  The BA does not hold information centrally on the number of visits and destinations. These figures could only be obtained at disproportionate cost by manually counting entries in visiting officer's diaries.

  The number of visiting officers based in Scotland is as follows:

  Number

  Benefits Agency District Officers

  352

  DCBD (Disability Benefits Centres in Edinburgh and Glasgow)

  13

  Benefit Fraud Investigation Service

  275

  Benefits Agency Security Investigation Service (Organised Fraud)

  16

  I hope this is helpful.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Dialogue on Europe
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the cost to public funds of the launch of the European Commission's Dialogue on Europe. [114136]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]:I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 27 March 2000, Official Report,column 53W.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 20 and 21 March; and if he will make a statement. [115957]

  Mr. Vaz
  The General Affairs Council in Brussels on 20-21 March adopted the "A" points listed in document no. 6962/00 and noted resolutions, decisions and opinions of the European Parliament in its sessions of 2-3 February, 14-18 February and 1-2 March listed in documents nos. 5614/00, 6130/00 and 6490/00. Copies of these documents will be placed in the House Libraries as soon as they become available.

  1. MEPs' Statute

  The Presidency updated the GAC on its discussions with the European Parliament over a Statute for Members of the European Parliament.

  2. Economic situation in Bulgaria and Romania

  In line with a decision of the Helsinki European Council in December 1999, Enlargement Commissioner Gunter Verheugen reported to the GAC on economic developments in Bulgaria and Romania.

  3. Mozambique

  The GAC agreed that the member states and the European Community would continue actively to participate in the rehabilitation efforts in Mozambique and looked forward to making a positive contribution to the Donor Conference on 26-27 April in Rome.
  168W
  4. EU-Africa Summit

  The Presidency briefed partners on preparations for the Africa-Europe Summit (Cairo, 3-4 April).

  5. Conflict in Africa

  The GAC considered a discussion paper by the Council Secretariat Policy Planning and Early Warning Unit on the crisis in the Great Lakes region. They agreed to discuss it further at the April GAC if possible.

  6. Freelance Interpreters

  The GAC agreed that freelance interpreters should be taxed on the same basis as other employees of the EU institutions.

  7. Council Formations

  The GAC discussed Presidency proposals to reduce the number of Council formations to 16.

  8. Lisbon European Council

  The GAC discussed arrangements for the European Council on 23-24 March.

  9. Inter-governmental Conference

  The GAC held an exchange of views, focusing on vote re-weighting and the size and structure of the Commission after enlargement. Discussion will continue in the IGC Preparatory Group. The Presidency will report to the Feira European Council in June.

  10. Defence/ESDP

  The GAC discussed a draft Presidency report to the Lisbon European Council on follow-up to the Helsinki European Council report on strengthening the common European security and defence policy, including annexes on: elaboration of the head-line goal on military capabilities agreed at Helsinki; military bodies in the European Union; and the possible establishment of a committee for civilian crisis management.

  11. UN Human Rights Commission—China

  The GAC expressed its concern at the human rights situation in China and agreed to review the EU/China human rights dialogue to make it more focused and result-orientated. The GAC agreed to continue regularly to review its policy on human rights in China.

  12. Russia

  The GAC reiterated its deep concern over Russian actions in Chechnya, in particular continued reports of gross violation of human rights and international humanitarian law. It deplored the lack of Russian action to meet the EU's specific demands at the EU/Russia Summit on 3 March in Lisbon aimed at improving the international relief effort in Chechnya. The GAC called on Russia quickly to accede to the ICRC's request for free access to detainees in Chechnya. The GAC welcomed the Russian invitation to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the OSCE Chairman-in-Office to visit Chechnya in April. It also welcomed Russia's invitation to the OSCE to monitor the presidential elections on 26 March and expressed the hope that the elections would further contribute to the development of democratic and economic reforms in Russia.

  13. Mexico

  The GAC gave political agreement for the formal adoption of the EU/Mexico Free Trade Agreement in the margins of the European Council in Lisbon.
  169W
  14. Western Balkans

  Kosovo

  The GAC adopted conclusions deploring the security situation in Mitrovica and Presevo. It condemned extremism from both sides and reminded political leaders in Kosovo that they would be held accountable for any further spread of violence. It called for Kosovo Serb participation in the Joint Interim Administration structures and for the proper preparation of elections. It recalled the massive resources allocated by the EU for assistance to Kosovo.

  Former Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY)

  Following the recent extension of the visa ban list, the Council adopted a Regulation suspending the flight ban for six months, agreed to adopt revised financial sanctions before the end of the month. It condemned the harassment of the independent media and urged FRY democratic forces to intensify their efforts to build a unified front. It expressed its readiness to assist Montenegro and to consider the extension of the Kosovo reconstruction agency to Montenegro.

  Danube

  The GAC stressed the urgency of resolving the obstacles to freedom of navigation.

  Bosnia

  The GAC welcomed the road-map for Bosnia to help pave the way towards a feasibility study on a Stabilisation and Association Agreement. It stressed that the rate of progress will depend on the actions of the Bosnian authorities to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the SAA process.

  Stability Pact

  The GAC invited the Commission to present urgently a detailed proposal for the EU's contribution to the Stability Pact Regional Financing Conference at the end of March and stressed that EU support must be matched by credible and consistent reforms by the countries of the region.

  European Community Monitoring Mission

  The GAC underlined its wish for a restructured, flexible and streamlined European Community Monitoring Mission to support the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy.

  15. East Timor

  Ireland briefed partners on the Taoiseach's visit to East Timor on 9 March.

  Information and Intelligence Sharing
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from US authorities concerning information and intelligence sharing between the United States and Britain. [116353]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 28 March 2000]: Any correspondence of this nature is covered by Exemption 1c of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. It is long-standing practice of successive Governments that such information is not released.

  Tartan Day Reception
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if invitations have 170W
  been sent to representatives of the Scottish National Party to attend the Tartan Day Reception at the British Ambassador's residence in Washington; who was responsible for drawing up the guest list; and what role the British ambassador had in monitoring and approving the guest list; [116576]

  (2) if he will list the hon. Members and Members of the Scottish Parliament who have been invited to attend the Tartan Day Reception at the British Ambassador's residence in Washington; on what date each invitation was sent out; and if he will make a statement; [116584]

  (3) if he will order a report from the British Ambassador in Washington on the preparations for Tartan Day in the USA and his discussions with the organising committee regarding the inclusion of Scottish National Party representatives in the organised events; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [116583]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 28 March 2000]: The Ambassador and the Embassy have made clear from the outset that invitations will be sent to all visiting Members of the Scottish Parliament. They have been working with the Tartan Day Committee in the US to organise the reception and to draw up the guest list, which was seen and cleared by the Ambassador. The Ambassador has been in touch with the First Minister, Donald Dewar, and with the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, Sir David Steel.

  The Embassy has been told that George Reid MSP and Patricia Fergusson MSP, two Deputy Presiding Officers, will be coming to Washington to represent the Scottish Parliament, and that John Swinney MSP and Fiona McLeod MSP will also be attending. All these were immediately sent invitations to the reception. If other Members of the Scottish Parliament are visiting Washington for Tartan Day they might like to get in touch with the Embassy, either direct, through the office of the Presiding Officer, or through the Tartan Day Committee. The Embassy will be delighted to include them in the reception.

  In view of the above, a report will not be requested from the Ambassador in Washington on the preparations for Tartan Day.

  British Overseas Territories
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 288W, on British overseas territories, when his Department expects to finish the review of whether to impose an order in council to ensure that the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos islands change their existing legislation on homosexual acts. [116556]

  Mr. Battle
  There is no set date for the completion of the review. Discussions are currently in progress with the relevant territory governments. We are pursuing these with all due expedition.

  Indonesia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Indonesian Government concerning the situation in West Papua. [116549]
  171W
  Mr. Battle
  We have made no recent representations on Irian Jaya. However, we closely monitor developments in West Papua. Our Ambassador to Indonesia and a visiting member of our South East Asia Department are visiting West Papua this week, where they will hold meetings with a wide range of contacts, including NGO representatives.

  Zimbabwe
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Zimbabwe concerning the situation of white farmers. [116551]

  Mr. Hain
  I spoke to the Zimbabwean Vice President on 6 March and wrote to the Foreign Minister on 7 March. My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary wrote to the Vice-President on 15 March. The High Commission at Harare is in close touch with the Commercial Farmers' Union. The Government of Zimbabwe are in no doubt of our concern at the farm invasions.

  UN Rapid Reaction Force
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals for the establishment of a United Nations rapid reaction force the Government will put forward at the Millennium Assembly and Summit in September. [116553]

  Mr. Hain
  We are keen to improve the UN's rapid reaction capability to enable it to respond more effectively to emerging crises. We are encouraging the UN Secretary-General to address this issue in his report on UN Peace Operations, due for publication this summer. We hope that rapid reaction will also be a subject for high-level discussion at the Millennium Summit, in the context of a wider discussion of peace, security and disarmament issues.

  Tokyo Embassy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will appoint a member of a non-Governmental organisation as the Atomic Energy Counsellor at the British Embassy in Tokyo. [116274]

  Mr. Hain
  There are no plans to make such an appointment at this time.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 March. [116300]

  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.

  Rosemary Nelson
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received calling for an independent 172W
  judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Mrs. Rosemary Nelson on 15 March 1999; and if he will make a statement. [115280]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 March 2000]: Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have received a number of representations, including some from Mr. Paul Nelson and the Magee family and a number of Human Rights organisations.

  The Government have not ruled out an independent judicial inquiry. However we have made it clear that we will not consider an inquiry while the criminal investigation is ongoing and there remains the possibility of bringing the perpetrators to justice.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Two Metre Rul
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions his Department has held with(a) farming organisations and (b) environmental organisations over the impact on (i) historic hedges and (ii) wildlife of the implementation of the two metre rule. [115543]

  Ms Quin
  This Department has held discussions with all the principal farming organisations and statutory environmental bodies on the issues mentioned by the hon. Member as well as with the European Commission.

  Last week my right hon. Friend the Minister reached agreement with the EU Agriculture Commissioner, Franz Fischler, that the United Kingdom should, for this year, apply the same criteria as were used in 1999 and earlier years for determining the acceptability of hedges and other field margins included in claims based on whole Ordnance Survey field areas under the Integrated Administration and Control System. For 2001 and subsequent years, MAFF will work with the Commission in order to clarify what types of margins are acceptable for inclusion in aid claims and identify ways of safeguarding environmentally valuable hedges so that we can reach a permanent resolution of this issue.

  Rendering
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many companies offering(a) rendering followed by incineration and (b) direct incineration, that were awarded a contract under the over-30-months scheme have not had contracts renewed; and if he will make a statement. [114826]

  Ms Quin
  The Intervention board (IB) has let a large number of contracts for services connected with the operation of the OTMS. In line with good procurement practice, IB has a rolling programme for reviewing and, if necessary, re-tendering these contracts which may involve changes to the service required or its delivery. IB reserves the right to terminate contracts if contractors fail to meet their obligations.

  Since 1996, when the scheme began, 13 companies have been contracted to render OTMS material. Five of these companies are currently contracted for this service, contracts having been let following a competitive tender

  173W
  in 1997. Each of the five companies is burning OTMS tallow produced on-site to fuel their rendering process. One of the contracts also covers the incineration of the OTMS meat and bone meal (MBM) in an incinerator that is under construction and due to start operation in late summer 2000.

  IB awarded six contracts for direct incineration of carcase material following a competitive tender in 1996. One contract was terminated, but the remaining five companies are currently fulfilling their contracts to incinerate OTMS carcase material. One of these contracts was extended for a further period of 12 months during 1999.

  Inshore Fishing
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will support the lifting of the ban on the Fleetwood inshore fishing fleet from fishing in their traditional waters in zone VIIa; if he will act to curtail the activities of Belgian and Irish beam trawlers catching cod in the same zone; and if he will compensate the Fleetwood inshore fleet for the time they have been laid-up under the ban under Article 16 of the Structures Regulation. [116094]

  Mr. Morley
  The priority at present in the Irish Sea (zone VIIa) is to protect cod spawning given the serious state of cod stocks in this area. With this in mind the European Commission decided in February to close the area to most demersal fishing from 14 February until 1 May 2000. Shrimp and nephrops fisheries (in designated areas), however, remain open. I announced on 10 March that a voluntary agreement had been reached between the UK, Belgium and Ireland to withdraw flatfish beam trawlers from the closed area until 1 May. This has been welcomed by the industry.

  In conjunction with the Fleetwood Fish Producers' Organisation, CEFAS is conducting trials in the inshore fishery to see what proportion of cod is likely to be taken. Results from these trials will enable us to decide what inshore fisheries could remain open without jeopardising the recovery of cod stocks in the event of closures in future years.

  There are a number of conservation closures in place. The Government do not believe it is appropriate to compensate fishermen for a decline in stocks or for conservation measures designed to improve stocks and hence fishing opportunities in the future; there is no history of this under preceding Governments. Those fishermen who are unable to work in the nephrops and shrimp fisheries or in other fisheries outside the closed area may be entitled to claim Job Seeker's Allowance and other benefits.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the(a) amount and (b) value of beef imported from the Argentine to the UK in 1999. [116211]

  Ms Quin
  The volume and value of imports of beef and beef products from the Argentine during 1999, as recorded in the Official Overseas Trade Statistics, are shown in the table.
  174W

  Product

  Tonnes

  £ million

  Meat and offal preparations1

  7,719

  10.9

  Carcase meat

  2,058

  6.4

  Offal

  305

  0.6

  Total

  10,082

  17.9

  1 Primarily corned beef

  BSE
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the EU countries that have detected BSE in their cattle. [116247]

  Ms Quin
  BSE has been reported in home-bred cattle in Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal. In addition, cases of BSE have been reported in cattle imported into Germany and Italy, but these countries have reported no cases in native cattle.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the results of the BSE inquiry conducted by Lord Justice Phillips. [116461]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 28 March 2000]: The BSE Inquiry requested a six-month extension beyond the deadline of 31 March 2000 to complete their task. The Government have agreed this extension and the report will be published shortly after receipt by Ministers.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions exist on use of land and the movement of livestock as a result of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident; and if he will estimate the cost to United Kingdom farmers of the restrictions introduced because of radioactive pollution from Chernobyl. [116269]

  Ms Quin
  There have never been restrictions on the use of land in the UK as a result of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. However, restrictions on the movement, sale and slaughter of sheep were placed in certain areas of the UK. These restrictions have been progressively lifted from affected holdings so only approximately 430 of the holdings originally under restrictions are still under controls. This represents a decrease of around 95 per cent. Although the Chernobyl incident has undoubtedly affected the husbandry practices within the affected areas, the Government and devolved Administrations operate the Mark and Release Sheep Compensation Scheme to reimburse farmers for any market losses incurred.

  Milk
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the unit levels of export refunds in(a) euros and (b) sterling for (i) skimmed milk powder, (ii) whole milk powder, (iii) butter and (iv) condensed milk for each of the last 12 months. [116135]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: The information in the form requested could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Hop Growers
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the
  175W
  terms of special temporary measures for hop growers and (a) identify the reference date from which areas should not increase and (b) specify if that date refers to areas planted or areas harvested; [116136]

  (2) for what reason some hop growers received lower payments under special temporary measures for 1999 than those for which they applied. [116137]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: The aim of the special temporary measures for hops is to allow producer groups and individual growers to adjust their production to market requirements during the period 1998–2002 by receiving aid on areas temporarily rested or permanently grubbed-up, provided certain requirements are met.

  Under current arrangements, the reference date from which the total area should not increase is the area harvested in 1997. Payments to hop growers were made on this basis by the Intervention Board Executive Agency, which administers the scheme in the UK. In some cases, payments were reduced because growers did not comply with these arrangements. The arrangements have been questioned by some hop growers and we are presently reviewing the matter.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Third-world Debt
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on current third-world debt. [115431]

  Clare Short
  Debt relief under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative has been agreed for the first three countries, with Mozambique, Senegal and Tanzania being assessed next. Under the new framework, countries are required to develop poverty reduction strategies to qualify for debt relief. We are concerned that progress in finalising enhanced debt relief is slower than was originally agreed.

  Conservation Projects
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of UK-sponsored conservation projects upon indigenous and nomadic people in Africa. [115437]

  Clare Short
  We have recently completed a substantial evaluation of British-funded project support for environmental improvement in five countries including Kenya and Tanzania. The study found that nearly two thirds of these projects achieved their objectives successfully but that they had a limited impact on the livelihoods of local people. Our current environmental policy places much greater focus on the need to improve the livelihoods of the poor to achieve sustainable development.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she had 176W
  concerning the funding of post-conflict initiatives in Kosovo when she last met her colleagues from other member states of the European Union. [115438]

  Clare Short
  The UK has provided more than £100 million in humanitarian and rehabilitation assistance to Kosovo. The European Union has pledged 865 million euro over the last two years—of which the UK share is £112 million. I am frequently in contact with my EU colleagues on this and other issues.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on continuing support from her Department for projects in Kosovo. [115439]

  Clare Short
  The UK has provided more than £100 million in humanitarian and rehabilitation assistance to Kosovo. The European Union has pledged 865 million euro over the last two years—of which the UK's share is £112 million. I am frequently in contact with my EU colleagues on this and other issues.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she next intends to visit Kosovo to discuss aid for reconstruction. [115446]

  Clare Short
  I have no present plans to re-visit Kosovo. We are working closely with the United Nations Mission in Kosovo and other international agencies to support reconstruction.

  Mozambique
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on relief operations in Mozambique. [115440]

  Clare Short
  The search and rescue phase is over. Relief operations continue to progress as access improves under the co-ordination of the Government of Mozambique with support from the United Nations. The priority remains to stabilise the conditions of the flood-affected population by providing sufficient shelter, food, water, sanitation and healthcare both in accommodation centres and also to those returning to their homes.

  We have allocated a total of £20 million for humanitarian assistance to those affected by the floods. This money is being channelled both to ensure the effective continuation of relief efforts, but also to start immediate work on establishing emergency physical access through repairs to roads and bridges, rehabilitating health and education services and also to help re-establish the livelihoods of the affected population.

  We are assessing the need for additional longer-term support. We expect to concentrate on feeder roads, seeds and small livestock restocking and on strengthening planning in health and education. We already have plans to spend around £70 million over the next two years. This can be increased if necessary. We will attend the proposed donor conference on reconstruction in Rome at the end of April.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's plans for longer-term reconstruction and development in Mozambique. [115443]
  177W
  Clare Short
  We have already committed £70 million to our development programme in Mozambique over the next two years. We are currently assessing how our plans should be modified to help Mozambique recover from the recent crisis.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department plans to give to Sri Lanka in 2000–01. [115441]

  Clare Short
  Our development assistance programme for Sri Lanka focuses on three areas—providing relief and rehabilitation for those affected by conflict in the North and East; improving the quality of education (particularly at primary level); and exploring how we might help promote reconciliation.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the present British aid projects in place in Sri Lanka; and what is the value of those projects. [114253]

  Clare Short
  We published a Country Strategy Paper for our development assistance to Sri Lanka last year. I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. Our programme in Sri Lanka focuses on three issues important for poverty reduction: improving the quality of education, particularly at primary level; providing relief and rehabilitation for those affected by conflict; and promoting intercommunal reconciliation.

  We expect to spend around £6.3 million this financial year. The major elements will be on education (£1.5 million), helping those affected by conflict (£3.5 million), and the final expenditure on some environmental projects approved under the previous Administration (£0.5 million).

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance is being given to the Government of Sri Lanka; and if she will make a statement. [115454]

  Clare Short
  Our bilateral development assistance programme to Sri Lanka will be around £6.3 million in the current financial year (1999–2000); next year we expect to spend around £6 million.

  We published a Country Strategy Paper for our development assistance to Sri Lanka last year. I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. Our programme in Sri Lanka focuses on three areas—improving the quality of education, particularly at primary level; providing relief and rehabilitation for those affected by conflict; and promoting intercommunal reconciliation. Not all of the programme works directly through the Government of Sri Lanka; a significant proportion is channelled through international organisations and NGOs (including UNICEF, UNHCR, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Oxfam and Save the Children Fund).

  Volunteers
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's support for the work of British volunteers. [115442]
  178W
  Clare Short
  We support five British volunteer programmes: Voluntary Service Overseas, International Co-operation for Development, Skillshare Africa, International Service and British Executive Service Overseas. In 1999–2000, we provided over £28 million to support over 2,700 volunteers working world-wide.

  Disaster Relief
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will set up permanent arrangements for disaster relief operations. [115444]

  Clare Short
  Such arrangements and mechanisms already exist internationally through the United Nations and within the UK under the co-ordination of the Department for International Development.

  Primary Education (Africa)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures are being taken by her Department to improve(a) access to and (b) the quality of, primary education in Africa. [115445]

  Clare Short
  We are committed to the International Development Targets of achieving universal primary education by 2015 and gender equality in primary and secondary schooling by 2005. In our bilateral programmes in Africa, substantial resources are allocated to education for the achievement of these targets. And in my meetings with representatives of African governments, I take every opportunity to discuss their commitment to, and progress in, achieving these targets.

  We believe four things need to be done if these targets are to be met and there is to be significant improvement in access to, and the quality of, primary education in Africa. First, we need a real and sustained commitment by African governments to securing universal primary education. We need to work with those governments committed to reform, and help them put in place the structural changes necessary to deliver quality primary education for all their children.

  Second, we need to address the issue of resourcing for education. There is a clear need to increase the level of resources that African governments commit to primary and basic education. Too often, the needs of the primary sector are not funded because the university sector has more vocal and politically influential constituents. In Africa, the public subsidy for a university student is 20 per cent, of a primary school pupil. And investing in primary and basic education should be a vital priority area for development assistance.

  Third, we need to shift from a projects-based approach to a sector-wide approach which gives appropriate priority to basic and primary education. And 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. This means encouraging and supporting a sound macro-economic framework which ensures a sustainable flow of resources for primary education. And it means help with reforms to ministries of education, to systems of management and teacher training, book production, and tax reform.
  179W
  The fourth thing we need to do if we are to achieve universal primary education by 2015 is to link education policy with the wider development strategy of the country, including policies on health, sanitation, livelihoods and rural transport. African governments and donors need to address the serious obstacles that often exist to enrolment, as well as the causes of drop out from school. This is particularly vital in the case of girls, who often face barriers of prejudice and discrimination, as well as economic disadvantage.

  These are our priorities for Africa. This is also the agenda that we will be taking to the World Education Forum in Dakar next month. This meeting provides an important opportunity for African government, development agencies and non-governmental organisations—from North and South—to recommit themselves to a quality primary education system for all Africans.

  AIDS (Africa)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact on children in Africa of the spread of AIDS. [115447]

  Clare Short
  AIDS is now the biggest killer in Africa. A first major impact on children in Africa is that there are now 10.4 million African children who will have lost their mothers or both parents to AIDS. This is 90 per cent. of the global total of AIDS orphans. Many of these orphans are infected with the disease from birth or from breast feeding, reversing the gains made in child survival rates over the last 30 years. DFID is working in collaboration with NGO partners in many countries in Africa to reach AIDS orphans with the care and support they need. We are a significant contributor to UNICEF who have extensive programmes with orphans throughout Africa (£10.5 million contributed in 1998).

  A second major impact of the disease is on young people. About half of all new HIV infections world-wide occur in young people aged 15-24, with girls being particularly at risk to the disease. We need to reach children and young people early on and enable them to make preventative choices. DFID is funding a number of multi-media projects such as the BBC Great Lakes Lifeline service, and a children's radio service for the Great Lakes region, Angola and Mozambique. These services seek to reach young people and children with the right health and sex education information and messages.

  Finally, the impact of HIV/AIDS on the education system is staggering. In the worst affected countries, more than 30 per cent, of teachers are infected with HIV, and many more students and teachers are not able to attend school because they are needed at home to care for sick relatives. Girls are particularly affected, often being the first family members to be pulled out of education to help in the home. DFID is working with a number of Governments in sub-Saharan Africa to assess and plan for the impact of the pandemic on their education systems, and to develop effective HIV/AIDS education programmes for schools. DFID is also working with NGO partners to provide support to girls and boys whose involvement in education is threatened by HIV/AIDS.

  Mongolia
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is giving to Mongolia. [115448]

  Clare Short
  Most UK aid to Mongolia is channelled through multilateral agencies, in particular the European Commission, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. The UK contributes around £5.7 million through these agencies and this figure is set to rise slightly over the next two to three years.

  We also support UK non-governmental Organisations' work in Mongolia, focusing on activities which benefit the poorest. Our bilateral development assistance totalled £470,000 in 1998–99 and a similar figure is expected for the current year.

  In response to the recent severe weather crisis, we are contributing to the purchase of essential relief supplies in Mongolia. To date, the UK Government have contributed around £50,300 to the relief effort.

  Madagascar
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking in Madagascar; and if she will make a statement. [115449]

  Clare Short
  Cyclones Eline and Gloria and the ensuing floods have caused damage directly affecting some 500,000 people in Madagascar. However, the number of people requiring immediate assistance is about 45,000. We have contributed some £600,000 for immediate relief including food, clean water, health services and the necessary logistics to ensure delivery of items to isolated communities. This funding has been channelled through UNICEF and the World Food Programme.

  We continue to monitor the situation closely through our Embassy in Madagascar and operational partners in the field. We stand ready to respond further to assessed needs.

  EU Tobacco Subsidies
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will propose to the Council of Ministers the transfer of the budgetary allocation for subsidies to European Union tobacco growers to international development projects outside the EU. [115450]

  Clare Short
  The Government strongly disapprove of subsidies to EU tobacco growers under the Common Agricultural Policy and would like to see an end to the tobacco regime on the grounds of health and cost. We believe that the Community should progressively disengage from support for tobacco production and will continue to press for further reform of the regime.

  At the Berlin European Council of March 1999, EU heads of government agreed the overall ceiling and division of the Community's spending for the period 2000–06. Transferring funds from the Agriculture budget to the External Action budget would mean breaking this agreement on overall budget discipline.
  181W
  Rather than increasing the EC's development budget, my Department is working with the EU to improve the effectiveness of its programmes, and focus them more on the poorest countries.

  Debt Relief
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries have agreed to adopt(a) poverty relief and (b) education programmes to qualify for debt relief and further aid. [115451]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 1 March 2000,Official Report, column 295W.

  Dakar Education Summit
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the World Education Forum at Dakar. [115452]

  Clare Short
  The World Education Forum in Dakar from 26-28 April provides an important opportunity for governments, development agencies and non-governmental organisations—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). We have seven major priorities for this Forum.

  First, we believe there must be collective re-affirmation of the Education for All (EFA) goals, allied to focused strategies for their achievement, and particularly the attainment of the international development targets for education. We know that where there is strong political commitment allied to well-defined and well-managed education strategies, dramatic progress can be made, even in some of the poorest countries.

  Second, developing country governments need to give priority to basic education. In many countries, this will require greater efficiency of spending within the education sector and greater focus on basic education; it may also require an increased share of national income to education. But even with the improved mobilisation of resources within country there will be the need for additional funding from development agencies. The Dakar Framework for Action should also make clear the willingness of funding agencies to allocate significant additional resources to support the achievement of Education for All, where governments have developed well-focused education strategies. No government seriously committed to basic education within a sustainable development framework should be thwarted in the achievement of this goal by lack of resources.

  Third, basic education should be firmly set within an overall, sustainable education sector framework. Funding agencies should shift from individual projects to broader support for a government-led education sector strategy which is coherent and able to exploit linkages with wider poverty elimination and development efforts.

  Fourth, on gender, we must move beyond the language of awareness to the language of action. We have learned that where gender is mainstreamed through government development policy there is progress. Where it is
  182W
  "projectised" the gains are local and slow. The Framework for Action should set out these lessons and their implications for effective gender equity strategies.

  Fifth, sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia should be accorded international priority. These regions are where the challenge to meet Education for All goals is greatest; they are also where efforts are greatly impeded by poverty, HIV/AIDS and by conflict.

  Sixth, we need better monitoring of progress towards goals and targets. This requires investment in the development of national capacity allied to efficient international monitoring systems. The potential of UNESCO's Institute of Statistics will be important in this field.

  Seventh, Dakar should look seriously at whether the existing inter-agency EFA structure will be adequate to its purpose in the future. Dakar should agree on principles for follow-up and monitoring which better engage national governments, civil society, bilateral and multilateral agencies and highlight Education for All as a development priority in all relevant international and regional fora, including the G8 and relevant high level meetings of the United Nations.

  These are the priorities which the Government will be pursuing at Dakar.

  Horn of Africa
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the likely effects of crop failures in the Horn of Africa. [115453]

  Clare Short
  Crop failure is a regular occurrence in the Horn of Africa and communities have developed strategies for dealing with its effects. These include diversification of agricultural production systems and other socio-economic strategies, such as migration. Extreme hardship through crop failure is usually the result of conflict or poor crop management.

  Harvests were poor in 1999 in some parts of the Horn of Africa. It is too early to say if 2000 is likely to see serious crop failure in Ethiopia and Somalia but the UN estimates emergency food needs for 2000 will be as follows:

  Ethiopia (Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Commission)— 900,000 metric tonnes for 8.1 million people

  Eritrea (United Nations Country Team)—25,000 metric tonnes for 211,750 people

  Somalia (United Nations Appeal)—25,000 metric tonnes for 400,000 people.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made towards constructing an airport on the Island of St. Helena. [115455]

  Clare Short
  I have agreed that my Department will finance a comparative study of air and sea access costs in order to identify the most cost-efficient permanent solution to the island's international passenger and cargo transportation needs. Terms of Reference for the study are
  183W
  currently being prepared and will be agreed with the St. Helena Government. Consultants are expected to start work in the middle of the year.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her policy regarding bilateral aid to Southern Africa. [115456]

  Clare Short
  Our policy for bilateral assistance to Southern Africa is set out in our Country Strategy Papers, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Throughout Southern Africa we are working with the international community in support of national and regional programmes to achieve the international development targets, through public sector reform, better education and health, HIV/AIDS prevention and promoting economic growth and sustainable livelihoods.

  Cuba
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with representatives of the United States Government regarding medical services in Cuba. [115457]

  Clare Short
  I have not held discussions with the United States Government regarding medical services in Cuba. The United Kingdom Government are committed to providing medical care and equipment through the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO). The EC is the largest aid donor to Cuba and provided US$15.2 million in official development assistance (ODA) in 1998. In 1997, (the latest figures available) the UK share of the EC's £12.39 million aid programme to Cuba was £1.85 million.

  Small Arms (Africa)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects her Department supports which tackle the problems of small arms trafficking in sub-saharan Africa. [115458]

  Clare Short
  Working through sub-regional organisations and institutions, we support a number of projects aimed at reducing the proliferation of small arms in Africa including through controlling trafficking.

  DFID has provided some £300,000 through UNDP for the implementation of the Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS) Moratorium on the importation, exportation and manufacture of light weapons.

  This year, we funded the conference on "Tackling Small Arms Proliferation in Eastern Africa and the Greater Horn" which led to an outline Action Plan for the sub-region which will tackle the subject of arms trafficking. This contributed to the March 2000 Nairobi Declaration which maps out a sub-regional approach to the proliferation of small arms.

  In 1998, DFID funded the seminar that produced the EU/Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) sub-regional action programme on small arms which was
  184W
  endorsed by EU/SADC Ministers in Vienna. DFID has provided funding to take this action programme forward, including holding a conference in South Africa in May 1999 with all key stakeholders to define practical measures. We have also supported the participation of representatives of the sub-region at the UN Firearms Protocol negotiations.

  Indonesia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which environmental projects her Department supports in Indonesia. [116541]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The importance of environmental protection and sustainable management in Indonesia cannot be denied. They are essential if poverty is to be eliminated.

  Illegal logging, land clearing and forest fires, habitat loss and haze are among the problems focusing the environment and which ultimately affect poor people's livelihoods. These issues pose a very significant threat to the environment as deforestation continues at an alarming rate.

  We intend to help tackle these problems but as part of a collective effort with the international community to facilitate Indonesian solutions to Indonesian problems. The result should be a programme that helps Indonesia to manage forests more equitably and sustainably, giving poor people a greater share of the benefits.

  Drug Enforcement
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has made to the UNDCP concerning the programme scope. [116548]

  Clare Short
  My Department continues to contribute to the Government's dialogue with United Nations Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) on the scope of their programme. DFID officials were involved in the Government's preparations for the meetings in March of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs which oversees the work of UNDCP, and of the Major Donors to UNDCP.

  Drug Eradication Programmes
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has held with the World bank concerning its policy towards drug eradication programmes in poor countries. [116547]

  Clare Short
  My Department scrutinises World bank Country Assistance Strategy Papers to ensure that illicit drugs are properly covered in countries where they are an issue. Discussion on illicit drugs takes place with the bank at official level where appropriate.

  Forest Fires (Sumatra)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations her Department has received concerning forest fires in Sumatra; and if she will make a statement. [116542]

  Clare Short
  No formal representations have been made to my Department regarding the forest fires in Sumatra. Rapid deforestation over the past two decades
  185W
  has led to a situation where forest fires and smoke pollution from illegal land clearing has become an annual problem during the mid-year dry season. The fires have started unusually early this year, although most recent reports suggest that the rains have again quelled the fires in both Sumatra and Kalimantan.

  A number of donors are supporting efforts to combat forest fires directly. My Department is keen to work with others to address the underlying causes. We are helping design a programme that will promote more equitable and sustainable management of Indonesia's forests and give poor people a greater share of the benefits.

  Seychelles
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance her Department has provided to the Government of the Seychelles; and if she will make a statement. [116552]

  Clare Short
  Britain's bilateral assistance to the Seychelles since 1996–97 was as follows:

  £

  1996–97

  406,000

  1997–98

  328,000

  1998–99

  216,000

  Uruguay Round
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to support calls from developing countries to extend the deadline for compliance with the Uruguay Round agreements. [116111]

  Clare Short
  The UK, with our EU partners, recognises the difficulties faced by some developing countries in implementing WTO Agreements. We are ready to look sympathetically at requests for deadline extensions on a case-by-case basis, and agree that there should be no action to enforce implementation for the duration of negotiations on a new trade Round. Consultations are currently under way in Geneva on this and other implementation issues and I hope that a formally agreed position will emerge soon.

  In the meantime, our £16 million programme of trade-related technical assistance is helping developing countries participate in the multilateral trading system more effectively. (Details have been placed in the House of Commons Library). This programme provides assistance with implementation of Uruguay Round Agreements.

  Education Aid
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of United Kingdom aid to developing countries is for basic education. [115791]
  186W
  Clare Short
  In 1998 about 5 per cent. of the UK's bilateral official development assistance, which is £800 million, was spent on basic education.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the future of her Department's aid programme in Zimbabwe. [115434]

  Clare Short
  Our programmes in Zimbabwe are focused on assisting the poor—who are suffering most from the current crises. We have made clear since 1997 that we strongly support the case for land reform in Zimbabwe and have been willing to support reforms that are transparent, lawful and focused on providing land for poor Zimbabweans. I have recently approved a £5 million programme to support a land reform initiative that respects these principles which are being organised by civil society and the private sector.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Company Mergers
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research his Department has undertaken into the effect on employment of mergers. [115517]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department of Trade and Industry has not undertaken any research specifically on the employment effects of mergers. However, last year the Invest in Britain Bureau commissioned a study on the effects of acquisition of UK manufacturing companies by foreign investors. This included some analysis of the effects of foreign acquisition on employment. This report is available from the IBB.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many mergers between UK companies have taken place in each of the last five years; how many of these mergers have been referred to him; and in how many of these mergers he has intervened. [115518]

  Dr. Howells
  The annexe gives details of merger cases in the last five years.

  Annexe—Merger Statistics 1995–99

  1. Table 1 details the number of mergers that there have been between UK companies in the last five years.

  Table 1: Mergers between UK companies

  Number

  1995

  505

  1996

  584

  1997

  504

  1998

  635

  1999

  492

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  2. Strictly comparable figures are not readily available, but the number of merger cases (which includes mergers between foreign and UK companies) in the last five years on which the Director

  187W
  General of Fair Trading (DGFT) has submitted advice to the Secretary of State on whether to refer them to the Competition Commission is given in Table 2.

  Table 2: Mergers cases on which DGFT advised the Secretary of
  State

  Number

  1995

  203

  1996

  198

  1997

  186

  1998

  222

  1999

  220

  3. Table 3: gives information on the Secretary of State's decisions in the light of the DGFT's advice. He could refer the merger to the MMC/Competition Commission (CC); ask the DGFT to seek undertakings in lieu of reference; or clear the merger without a reference.

  Table 3: Secretary of State's decisions on advice from the DGFT

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Referred to the MMC/CC

  9

  13

  10

  8

  10

  Undertakings in lieu

  2

  4

  1

  3

  4

  4. Table 4: gives information on the Secretary of State's decisions in the light of the MMC/CC report. In all newspaper cases, and for other cases where the MMC/CC has found that the merger may be expected to operate against the public interest, the Secretary of State can allow the merger to proceed with no conditions; allow it to proceed under certain conditions; or prohibit it. In non-newspaper cases where the MMC/CC has found that the merger may be expected not to operate against the public interest, the Secretary of State can take no action on the merger.

  Table 4: Decisions on mergers referred to the MMC/CC in each year

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Mergers referred

  11

  14

  11

  9

  18

  Cleared

  5

  4

  4

  1

  7

  Prohibited

  3

  6

  2

  4

  0

  Conditions

  3

  4

  2

  3

  3

  Set aside

  0

  0

  3

  1

  4

  Not yet published

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Notes:

  1. The number of mergers referred includes newspaper cases on which the DGFT does not give advice. This accounts for the discrepancy between the first rows of tables 3 and 4.

  2. Although this table details decisions in the year in which the reference took place, the decision on a merger which has been referred is often taken in a year other than that in which the reference took place.

  Blue Arrow
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what other DTI investigations into Blue Arrow have been(a) undertaken or (b) commissioned by his Department other than that which led to the report published on 24 September 1992.[114471]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: It is my Department's well established practice not to comment on whether or not confidential investigations have been or are being carried out.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) to whom the inspectors' report on Blue Arrow was distributed prior to its publication in September 1992; [114468]
  188W
  (2) which (a) companies and (b) individuals who had access to the inspectors' report on Blue Arrow prior to its publication in September 1992 made representations as to its contents; [114469]

  (3) if amendments to the draft inspectors' report on Blue Arrow report were made following representations by interested parties prior to its publication. [114470]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: It is standard practice to offer the parties involved, which would include the company, those criticised and other principal figures, access to an inspectors' signed report prior to its publication. This is in accordance with section 437(3) of the Companies Act 1985. The practice, which was followed prior to publication of the Blue Arrow report, is a confidential process. Representations were received about the content of the report and its publication but no amendments were made to it prior to publication. The report published was that signed by the inspectors on 4 June 1991.

  Phoenix Fund
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications have been received for payments from the Phoenix Fund for the current financial year; how many have been successful; and how much money has been distributed. [114389]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The only application for payment this year has been in respect of the Business Volunteer Mentoring Association, details of which were set out in the answer on 16 March 2000, Official Report, column 273W.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance issued to applicants to the Phoenix Fund, pursuant to his News Release of 10 November 1999; and if he will make a statement. [114390]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: In line with the timetable set out in the report of the Policy Action Team 3 (on Enterprise and Social Exclusion), guidance will be published next month. I shall ensure that a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Astra
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he was requested to hand over file bundles 120, 121,140 and 141 in the Astra case to the JDS tribunal in the case of Gerald James; and what factors underlay his decisions in respect of those file bundles. [115411]

  Dr. Howells
  No requests for disclosure of information were received from the JDS tribunal in the case of Gerald James.

  Pakistan (Exports)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the(a)standard and (b)open individual export licences for export to Pakistan that have been granted since 12 October 1999, showing in each case the Military List rating; and how many applications for each category of licence are awaiting a decision. [116124]
  189W
  Dr. Howells
  For the period 12 October 1999 to 14 January 2000, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 25 January 2000,Official Report, column 202W.

  The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated. Between 15 January 2000 and 17 March 2000, no Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and no Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Pakistan of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List.

  As at 17 March 2000, decisions had not yet been taken on 85 applications for a SIEL and 15 applications for an OIEL to export such goods to Pakistan.

  Individual licence applications pending as at 17 March 2000 covering the export to Pakistan of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  Number of pending applications for SIELs covering goods with this rating

  Number of pending applications for OIELs covering goods with this rating.

  ML1

  5

  0

  ML2

  2

  0

  ML3

  4

  0

  ML4

  5

  0

  ML5

  1

  0

  ML6

  5

  2

  ML9

  10

  4

  ML10

  32

  7

  ML11

  2

  0

  ML13

  1

  4

  ML14

  1

  1

  ML16

  4

  1

  ML17

  2

  1

  ML18

  11

  0

  ML21

  0

  1

  ML22

  1

  4

  PL5001

  0

  1

  PL5017

  3

  1

  End-use

  1

  0

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

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

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will amend his regional aid map proposals to bring them into line with EU rules. [115839]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 22 March 2000]:Discussions with the Commission on a new regional aid map are continuing. The new regional aid map must be approved by the Commission.
  190W
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if regional aid can be paid prior to the regional aid map being approved. [115961]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 23 March 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) on 21 December 1999, Official Report, column 465W.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how large a reduction in the number of people covered by the regional aid map the United Kingdom is required to make. [116595]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 28 March 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on 31 March 1999, Official Report, columns 804-05W.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if Alchemy has applied for regional selective assistance for the Longbridge site. [116218]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 March 2000]: No.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much regional aid money will be available in the financial year 2000–01 for(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) the UK. [116216]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 March 2000]: The figures for England will be set out in the DTI's Expenditure Plans, Command Document 4611, which we expect to publish on 11 April. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House. Expenditure in Scotland and Wales is a devolved matter.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much regional aid he plans to spend in the budget year 2000–01 in(a) the North-East, (b) Devon, (c) Cornwall and (d) the West Midlands. [115963]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 23 March 2000]: Details of regional aid will be set out in the DTI's Expenditure Plans, Command Document 4611, which we expect to publish on 11 April. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to meet the EU Commissioner to discuss the regional aid map. [115837]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 22 March 2000]: Commissioner Monti and I have regular contact on a range of issues including the regional aid map. I last met him on 2 March 2000 when we discussed the regional aid map.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is able to make regional aid available to Alchemy to invest at Longbridge on the same basis as was proposed for BMW. [115838]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 22 March 2000]: The area in which Longbridge is located will qualify for Regional Selective Assistance.

  Rover Dealerships
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the number of jobs which are dependent on Rover dealerships. [115962]
  191W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 23 March 2000]: Almost 12,000 people are employed in Rover's 300 franchised dealerships in the UK.

  Arachnoiditis
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will commission research into the causes and treatment of arachnoiditis; and if he will make a statement. [116107]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government fund health and medical research mainly through the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Department of Health.

  The MRC has a broad remit which covers all areas of research relating to human health. Although the MRC do not fund research specifically into the treatment of arachnoiditis, the MRC are funding research on one of the causes of arachnoiditis, meningitis. In 1998–99 the MRC spent about £525,000 on research of direct relevance to the cause and treatment of meningitis.

  Ice-cream Market
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will implement the findings of the Competition Commission to ensure that consumers obtain the benefits of effective competition in the impulse ice-cream market for the coming season. [115955]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend announced on 28 January his proposals for remedying the adverse findings of the Competition Commission report.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date the undertakings by Birds Eye Walls will come into effect in relation to the impulse ice-cream market. [115956]

  Dr. Howells
  Undertakings on interim remedies given on the 16 February came into effect immediately. The Director General of Fair Trading is negotiating further undertakings concerning outlet and freezer exclusivity and retrospective discounts. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the Director General of Fair Trading to seek to obtain undertakings by 31 March. The date at which they would come into effect, together with the terms themselves, are subject to negotiation.

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his plans are for the next quinquennial review of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory. [117206]

  Mr. Byers
  The Modernising Government White Paper (Cm 4310, March 1999) set out the Government's commitment to delivery of high quality, responsive public services and the approach to quinquennial reviews of Executive Agencies has now been re-focused to reflect this modernisation agenda. I have set in train therefore a Review of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) which will, in keeping with the new approach, consider all the organisational options for the Laboratory and ways in which to improve performance.

  The Review Steering Board is chaired by Mr. Robert Foster, Director, Innovation Policy and Standards, at the DTI. Mr. John Lee of the National Measurement
  192W
  Laboratories Unit in the DTI is the Secretary to the Board. The Board has appointed Mr. Martin Rumbelow as Reviewer.

  The Board has adopted the following Terms of Reference for the Review:
  The Reviewer is to consider and recommend:
  first, whether Agency status remains the most suitable way of delivering the services provided by NWML, considering all the options, including abolition, continued Agency status, market testing, merger or rationalisation, privatisation and strategic contracting out, taking into account NWML's contribution to the objectives of the Department and of the Government as a whole, developments in the national and international legislative, regulatory and commercial environment in which it operates, and the views of its customers and staff; and
  second, what additional services and functions could be provided, whether fee income could be increased, whether NWML's call on DTI resources could be reduced, and how its services and functions could be provided more effectively, for example through the increased use of partnership working and better use of information and communication technology, ensuring that lessons learned and best practice are clearly identified in the Report.
  The review is to be undertaken in accordance with the latest Cabinet Office guidance. The Reviewer will report at intervals to a Steering Board. It will be the task of the Steering Board to respond flexibly to the Reviewer's proposals during the progress of the Review, each member contributing guidance and knowledge, including where appropriate the good offices of his or her parent department. The Steering Board will ensure that Ministers, the Treasury, the Cabinet Office, and the staff and customers of the NWML are kept informed of the progress of the Review and will facilitate the gathering of information for the Reviewer and his or her communication with staff and customers.

  The membership of the Review Steering Board is as follows:

  Mr. Robert Foster (Chairman)—Director, Innovation Policy and Standards, DTI

  Mr. Noel Hunter—County Trading Standards Officer, Warwickshire County Council

  Mr. Dick Farman—Strategic Planning Director, Avery Berkel Group

  Mr. Harold Gay—Group Trading and Safety Legislation Manager, The Boots Company plc

  Dr. Seton Bennett—Director and Chief Executive, National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Mr. Shelley Charik—Director, National Measurement System, DTI

  Mr. Howard Ewing—Director, Consumer Advice and Information, DTI

  Dr. Les Whalley—Deputy Director, Standards and Technical Regulations, DTI

  Mr. Clive Fleming—Assistant Director, Executive Agencies, NDPBs And Service First, DTI

  Mr. Tim Dymond—Cabinet Office

  Ms Debbie Edwards—Enterprise Team, HM Treasury.

  193W
  The Reviewer, Mr. Rumbelow is contacting interested parties he believes can provide information and advice to assist him with his work. Information and advice from other interested parties is also welcome and should be sent to the Secretary to the Board:

  Mr. John Lee

  National Measurement Laboratories Unit

  Room 351

  Department of Trade and Industry

  151 Buckingham Palace Road

  London

  SW1W 9SS

  Telephone: 020 7215 1416

  Fax: 020 7215 1350

  E-mail:john.lee@dti.gsi.gov.uk

  BNFL
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the timing of a public-private partnership for BNFL. [117205]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Recent events at BNFL have clearly been a set back for the company. It is important that BNFL now responds positively to the HSE's reports on the Sellafield site and works to achieve necessary improvements in its safety and commercial performance. This will take time. As a result, it now appears that the earliest possible date for the introduction of any PPP into BNFL could not be before the latter part of 2002. The introduction and timing of any PPP remains subject to BNFL's performance against the targets set by Government as well as the further work being undertaken by the Government and their advisers.

  EEA (Parallel Trading)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the legality of parallel trading of goods from outside the European economic area markets; and what estimate he has made of the impact on United Kingdom manufacturing if such trading is rendered lawful. [116589]

  Dr. Howells
  The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the Silhouette case [C-355/96] of July 1998 highlighted the extent of powers afforded by European law to trade mark owners. In particular, the Court decided that they can prevent the import into the Community of goods which they themselves have already sold in other parts of the world. This confirmed as a matter of law that the European Trade Marks Directive does allow trade mark owners to use their rights to prevent import of their goods into the Community after they have been marketed elsewhere.

  Since this judgment, the European Commission has produced a study [Trade Mark exhaustion—Study on the economic consequences of alternative regimes by National Economic Research Associates for the European Commission] on the economic affects of such rights, and the results which can be expected if trade mark owners were to be denied them. The conclusions of this study are that a move to so-called international exhaustion would create beneficial impacts on the European economy. In particular, prices in some key consumer sectors would fall
  194W
  significantly, and competition in these sectors would increase as brand owners and retailers respond to increasingly competitive markets.

  Our own studies agree with the conclusions reached by the Commission. In particular there is likely to be a beneficial, if small, impact on the United Kingdom economy. We expect a maximum of about £400 million of additional imports would be generated by moving to international exhaustion. Total United Kingdom imports are around £220 billion, of which £180 billion are imports of goods. Additional levels of parallel imports would, therefore, be equivalent to approximately 0.2 per cent, of United Kingdom imports. Such imports are likely to arise in a limited number of sectors, principally clothing, footwear, sports and luxury goods for which there is already a strong import market. It seems likely that parallel imports would take market share from existing imports rather than domestic manufacturers.

  In the light of these studies, we are discussing trade mark rights with our European partners with a view to changing current legislation. However, in some sectors where the Single Market is not yet complete or which are subject to other special conditions, for example Pharmaceuticals, the benefits of international exhaustion are not clear, and care will be needed to ensure that unwanted results do not arise.

  Synchrotron
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which physical scientists were consulted and on what dates as part of the decision-making process for the relocation of the synchrotron. [116672]

  Mr. Byers
  A user consultation for the physical scientists was held on 22-23 January 1999 and on 14 December 1999 that addressed issues relating to the synchrotron location.

  Telewest Communications
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will invite the Office of Fair Trading to investigate Microsoft's proposed purchase of a stake in Telewest Communications. [116658]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 March 2000]: The size and European dimension of this case mean that it has fallen to the consideration of the EC competition authorities under the EC Merger Regulation (ECMR).

  I understand that the European Commission announced on 22 March that it was opening a full investigation into this case and it now has four months within which to come to a final decision. Member states have a formal role in this process.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what military materials have been given approval for delivery to Zimbabwe in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000. [116263]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been

  195W
  interrogated. Between 1 January 1999 and 17 March 2000, 18 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and six Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Zimbabwe of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List. Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings (and OIELs may also cover a range of countries). Where this is so, the licence is included in the table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Individual Licences issued between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 1999 and 1 January 2000 and 17 March 2000 covering the export to Zimbabwe of goods on the Military List

  No. of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  No. of OIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Rating

  1999

  2000

  1999

  2000

  ML1

  1

  2

  1

  0

  ML2

  5

  0

  1

  0

  ML3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  ML4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  ML6

  1

  0

  1

  0

  ML7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML10

  0

  7

  0

  0

  ML11

  0

  0

  2

  0

  PL 5002

  0

  0

  1

  0

  PL 5018

  1

  0

  2

  0

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

  Information on export licensing decisions in 1999, including details of the military equipment licensed, will be set out in the 1999 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, which will be published in due course. Similar details of the military equipment licensed in later years will be set out in the relevant Annual Reports.

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

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

  Rome Convention
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what(a) committees and (b) working groups his Department has set up to consider the revision of the Rome Convention; and if he will list the members and meetings scheduled; [116060]

  (2) what consultation (a) he has undertaken and (b) is planned by his Department on the revision of the Rome Convention; [116062]
  196W
  (3) if he will list the meetings his Department has held with outside bodies on the revision of the Rome Convention; what conclusions were reached; and if he will deposit these in the Library. [116065]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 March 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on 24 March 2000, Official Report, column 691W.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have taken place with the Lord Chancellor's Department on the implications of the revision of the Rome Convention for electronic commerce; and if he will make a statement. [116063]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 March 2000]: The Department and the Lord Chancellor's Department have had a number of general discussions about the Rome Convention and electronic commerce. Recently these have concentrated on the timing of the review of the Convention. When the plans for the review are known the Departments will work closely together on the policy issues affecting electronic commerce, in consultation with business and other organisations.

  West Midlands Task Force
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representation will be given to Bromsgrove District Authority on the West Midlands Task Force. [116280]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Chair of the Longbridge Task Force has invited David Bryant, Chief Executive of Bromsgrove District Council to join the Development SubGroup of the Task Force.

  The Task Force will take the work of the SubGroup into account when producing its comprehensive report and supporting recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  BMW
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports he has received concerning BMW's plans for the location of the production of the new medium saloon. [116215]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 March 2000]: BMW are still considering where to locate production of their new medium saloon.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of people employed in BMW dealerships and spares operations in the UK. [116221]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 March 2000]: Approximately 5,550 people are employed in BMW dealerships in the UK and about 1,000 more are employed in BMW's parts operations.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of people employed in Rover dealerships in the UK. [116220]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 March 2000]: Almost 12,000 people are employed in Rover's 300 franchised dealerships in the UK.
  197W
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to BMW about the sale of the new Mini through Rover dealerships. [116214]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 March 2000]: Discussions with representatives of BMW continue. They include the situation faced by Rover dealerships.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial aid packages will be made available and on what timescale to assist workers who lose their jobs following the sale of Rover. [116217]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 March 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on 28 March 2000, Official Report, columns 109-10W.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of jobs that will be lost at Longbridge in the next 12 months. [116219]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 March 2000]: Neither BMW nor Alchemy Partners have given an estimate of the number of jobs which might be lost.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Independent Tribunal Service
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what criteria are applied for selecting members for Independent Tribunal Service panels. [116302]

  Mr. Lock
  Job descriptions and statements of eligibility and criteria are available for applicants for each office advertised. Copies of the eligibility and criteria for appointment guidance for posts within the Appeals Service have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what reasons have been given to former members of the Independent Tribunal Service panels in the past year as to why their services were no longer required. [116301]

  Mr. Lock
  All former panel members who satisfied the age and appropriate qualifications criteria were offered interviews. Those who accepted and were unsuccessful at interview were given only this information, but were provided with the panel's reasons for rejection on request.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what is the process for selecting members of the panels for the Independent Tribunal Service. [116303]

  Mr. Lock
  Vacancies are advertised in the national press and professional journals. Appointment is on the basis of interview and of consultation with the relevant professional community. The Lord Chancellor appoints the candidates who best demonstrate that they meet the appropriate criteria.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many persons with a trade union background were appointed or re-appointed as members of the panel for hearing appeals by the 198W
  Independent Tribunal Service for (a) Glasgow and (b) Scotland in 1999; and how many in each category held a position on such panel immediately before panel members were informed that they had to re-apply for their positions. [116555]

  Mr. Lock
  There is not, nor ever has been, a formal requirement that any panel members have a trade union background and this information is not accordingly collected. It is not therefore possible to provide a breakdown by category. An independent review of all relevant appointments could be conducted only at disproportionate cost.

  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if Ms Ann Chant has completed her review of the Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman; and when it is intended to publish her report. [117207]

  Mr. Lock
  Ms Chant has completed her Review of the Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman. The Department has today published her Report and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

CABINET OFFICE

  Advertising Budgets
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is her Department's advertising budget for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [110257]

  Mr. Stringer
  The advertising budgets for the Cabinet Office for the 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are as follows:

  Year

  £000

  1999–2000

  8,998

  2000–01

  69.5

  These figures include the advertising undertaken by executive agencies in publicising their services provided to other parts of government. The Central Office of Information undertakes advertising on behalf of other parts of government, and this expenditure is excluded from Cabinet Office figures. Of the 1999–2000 total, £8,918,000 is associated with the Millennium Bug Information Programmes.

  Civil Service (Secondment)
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many people from the private sector are on secondment to the Civil Service; and in which Departments they are employed. [116357]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Modernising Government White Paper and Sir Richard Wilson's recent report to the Prime Minister on Civil Service reform made it clear that this
  199W
  Government are keen to promote the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. Such opportunities can take many forms, ranging from temporary secondments, to short term attachments, to job sharing and joint training.

  Interchange returns—1998–99

  Industry and Commerce—secondments

  Industry and Commerce—attachments

  Inward only Department/agency

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Cabinet Office

  3

  5

  8

  0

  0

  0

  Charity Commission

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  COI

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  CPS

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Crown Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  DCMS

  —

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  DETR

  14

  3

  17

  3

  1

  4

  DfEE

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  4

  DfID

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  DoH

  6

  4

  10

  0

  0

  0

  DSS

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  0

  DTI

  160

  23

  183

  3

  0

  3

  Employment Service

  16

  11

  27

  0

  0

  0

  FCO

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Government. Actuary's Department

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Government. Office for the Regions

  16

  3

  19

  0

  0

  0

  GCHQ

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Health and Safety Executive

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  HM C and E

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  HM Land Registry

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  HM Treasury

  16

  5

  21

  1

  0

  1

  Home Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Inland Revenue

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Intervention Board

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  LCD

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Legal Sec. to Law Officers

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  MAFF

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  MOD

  23

  2

  25

  1

  0

  1

  National Savings

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  NILO

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northern Ireland Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Offer

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Ofgas

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oflot

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Ofsted

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oft

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oftel

  3

  3

  6

  0

  0

  0

  Ofwat

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ohmcis

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Opraf

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Ordnance Survey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ORR

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Privy Council Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Public Record Office

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Registers of Scotland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Mint

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scottish Office

  7

  8

  15

  0

  1

  1

  Serious Fraud Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Treasury Solicitors Department

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  War Pensions Agency

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Welsh Office

  4

  4

  8

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  270

  75

  345

  11

  6

  17

  200W
  In the year ended 31 March 1999 there were 362 secondments and attachments from business and industry to the Civil Service. A breakdown of this figure by Department is attached. Figures from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 are due to be provided by Departments.

  Car Pool
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many motor vehicles in the Government car pool are available for use by Ministers. [116334]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to my hon. Friend.
  202W
  Letter from Nick Matheson to Mr. Tom Cox, dated March 2000:
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office has asked me in my capacity as the Chief Executive responsible for the Government Car Service to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of cars available to ministers.
  The Government Car Service (GCS) provided 85 vehicles allocated permanently to Ministers' Private Offices. In addition, GCS has a fleet of 28 "pool" cars which Ministers may use if their usual car and driver is unavailable.
  Ministers are not obliged to use GCS and Departments are free to choose other providers of these services.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Austrian Ministers
Lord Hurd of Westwell Lord Hurd of Westwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
For how long they intend to refuse to meet Austrian Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the measures implemented by us and our 13 other partners in the European Union are aimed at limiting our bilateral relationship with Austria as a signal of our concern at the inclusion of a far right party in Government. British and Austrian Ministers continue to work together on EU and other multilateral business. We have made clear to the Austrian Government that we will judge them on their actions and hew those match the commitments expressed in the Schuessel/Haider Declaration of 3rd February.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I wonder whether she noticed the remarks on this subject by the Belgian Foreign Minister, who is rather talkative on the matter. He said that this boycott must continue until the Austrian Government break up. Is that rather extraordinary interference the aim of Her Majesty's Government or is it, as the Minister indicated today, intended more as a signal of concern while the Government wait and see? How long do the Government intend to wait and see before they feel that they can judge whether the Chancellor of Austria and his colleagues are telling the truth about the intentions of policies of their government?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in relation to the comments made by the Belgian Minister, perhaps I may say straight away that of course he must be free to express his views. One knows that such views are not necessarily wholly representative of the Belgian position. However, as regards "how long" is, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that the Austrian Government have been in office only since February. We are now in March. Less than two months has passed. That period of time is insufficient for us to be able to judge with any degree of accuracy whether the comments made by the Austrians can be relied upon. We shall continue to keep the matter under review in a productive and appropriate way.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the European Union needs to be a union
800
based on values? Does she further agree that those values are seriously undermined by the entry into government by a party which either espouses, or is led by an individual who espouses racist or fascist views and that, therefore, we must continue to defend the fundamental values of the European Union?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords. I respectfully agree with that view. I believe I hear noble Lords opposite say "rubbish". That disappoints me greatly.
Noble Lords: Hear hear!
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is incredibly important that those values are shared and honoured and that we have confidence that our European partners share our aspirations in relation to security and equality.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House exactly what the Austrian Government have to do to satisfy the British Government? Do they have to submit their government or their election to scrutiny?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Certainly not, my Lords. The Austrian Government must demonstrate—I emphasise the word "demonstrate"—that their commitment to the European values is true. They can only do that with the passage of time.
Noble Lords: How long?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear noble Lords opposite ask, "how long". My answer to that is: as long as it takes to satisfy us that they are bona fide.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does interest in values, which is an important aspect in this matter, alter the attitude of the Government to the charter of fundamental human rights? If these democratic values were written into the treaty at the end of the IGC, would it not be easier to call to account governments in terms of how they stood up to such values?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. That is a view which has been canvassed before. I know that that matter is under constant debate. The values are clear at present. They are agreed upon by member states which are members of the European Union. We believe that there is sufficient clarity at present to deal with the situation as it appears to us.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister agree that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones? Is she aware that her Government admitted into government in this United Kingdom the representatives of armed terrorists who give no sign whatever of resiling from their terrorism?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say without any degree of repentance that this Government have behaved honourably in that regard. The noble Lord knows how difficult the situation is in relation to Northern Ireland. I remind the House that agreements were entered into voluntarily by all sides in an attempt to arrive at peace. Perhaps I may respectfully say that that situation cannot be compared with the situation with which we are presented by Austria.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that fascism is a creeping cancer? Had we been a bit firmer in the 1930s rather than allowing someone to come back carrying a piece of white paper, we may well have avoided the following six years.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that these are difficult times. We feel strongly that a proper message needs to be given to the Austrian Government voicing our concerns. Many noble Lords have said in the past that they have a choice. We are not trying to impinge on that choice. But neither can they impinge on ours. We have a choice as to with whom we associate and on what basis. We have chosen to indicate to the Austrians our disapproval of the position they have taken to date.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in answer to earlier questions the Minister stated that the Austrian Government must demonstrate that their commitment to European values is true. Can the noble Baroness tell the House which values and what specific steps they have to take to satisfy the Government?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have answered this question again and again. The Austrian Government made a number of commitments. We will test them on each and every one of those commitments to ensure that they are addressing the issues in an appropriate way. That is my answer.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Austrian people, who voted recently for a change out of frustration with the previous long-serving coalition, have an outstanding record of helping foreign refugees? I witnessed that help when I was a First Secretary in the British Embassy in Vienna during the Hungarian uprising in 1956. Should not the Austrian Government, as the noble Baroness said, be judged on their actions instead of being subjected to what are childish snubs?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I regret that the noble Lord should choose to describe the actions of 14 European states as "childish snubs"; we do not concur with that view. This is a matter we take extremely seriously. We know that the Austrian Government expressed clear indications and commitment that they will ensure that they adhere to values. We will give them the opportunity and advantage of demonstrating that by their actions.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Carter: My Lords, we are in the ninth minute and should move on.

Daresbury Laboratory, Warrington
2.45 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the future of the Daresbury Laboratory, Warrington, in view of the decision to site the joint United Kingdom/French Synchrotron Diamond Project at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Oxford.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the capability of the current synchrotron at the Daresbury Laboratory will be maintained and continue to operate for up to seven years to provide an overlap period with the new synchrotron. The research councils are currently investing £5 million in new beamlines.
On 13th March 2000 I announced a review to examine options for strengthening the science base in the North West and have committed a minimum of £25 million from the science budget to fund the implementation of the review team's recommendations. An important part of the review will be to identify opportunities to build on the scientific capabilities of the Daresbury Laboratory. The Daresbury Laboratory is owned by the Council Central Laboratories of the research councils and they will be examining the future options for Daresbury as part of its normal strategic and operational planning process.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, I am sure that he appreciates that the Government's decision over this matter caused considerable concern in the North West, particularly among the industry and businesses which make use of the facility and the science people within the North West. Can he confirm whether the £25 million being made available to the North West will be new money, and not re-allocated money? Will he confirm also what the focus of the new Daresbury Laboratory is likely to be? We have at Daresbury some of the greatest experts on accelerator technology and micro-technology systems. It is important that we continue the work of relating research and industry, at which Daresbury scientists have been so effective.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I understand the concerns of the scientists at Daresbury. The £25 million will be money that will be taken from the science budget and allocated specifically for this purpose. It is clearly new money in the sense that it will come from the Comprehensive Spending Review that is about to be agreed. We are aware that the people at

803
Daresbury Laboratory have substantial skills, not only in the design of accelerators but also in terms of instrumentation, computing and in general engineering. The projects we are considering will seek to build on that basis.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, will my noble friend consider the anger and frustration that occurred not only throughout the North West, but also further afield that the Diamond Project, at the behest of Wellcome, has gone to Oxford'? Further, morale at this world famous laboratory is at rock bottom. Staff are already leaving. While the Minister is offering £25 million, that is poor compensation for losing a £500 million contract. Can my noble friend be more specific in saying what major scientific project will be located at Daresbury?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are aware of the impact of this decision on the people who work at Daresbury and are conscious that we need to build morale in order to ensure that this facility works well over the next seven years. It is not totally accurate to compare the £500 million with the projects that will be introduced. That cost would be spread over 25 years, as opposed to investment that will come in immediately. Clearly, the point of establishing the review team is to look at the sort of projects that we could introduce most advantageously. We have a list of projects that may be suitable, which range from a bio-medical research facility, Manchester University, to a technology centre, to bio-informatics and a database centre, and also a regional data centre for the Cern Large Hadron Collider. There is a set of important projects at which the review team is to look specifically.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether any work had already been carried out on this project at the Daresbury Laboratory and, if so, whether any of the value of that has been retained by the transfer?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, some work had already been done on the design of the machine in the process of reviewing the location and looking at the specification which has substantially changed since the original design was drawn up. We shall be able to use some of those ideas, but the machine design is now going through substantial change because we are talking about a much larger machine, a 24-cell machine rather than the 16-cell machine of the original design.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, will the Minister for Science say how much he was influenced in the move to Oxford by the contributions made by the Wellcome Foundation and how much the decision was based on pure science?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the view of both the scientific advisers to the Government was that on balance there was a scientific case for the move to Didcot. This was not an overwhelming case, but on balance the view of the scientific adviser to the Government and the head of the research councils was that that was the right location. Given that this is a partnership of three parties, we took into account the views of our other partners, as one surely must do in these circumstances.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, will my noble friend—
Lord Jopling—: My Lords—
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservatives.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, cutting aside the convoluted wording of the first Answer, is not the real truth that this money has been announced before in the general science budget and therefore it is not new money?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I have not made clear that this is money which will come from the new comprehensive spending review and therefore it has not been allocated.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the synchrotron project at Daresbury has operated highly successfully for more than 20 years? Is he aware that the Government's decision to resite the project at Oxford has been regarded in the North West as virtually a government vote of no confidence in the scientific future of the region? Can the Minister explain why the Government allowed themselves to be dictated to and virtually blackmailed by the Wellcome Trust? Seven of the eight trustees of that trust are professors at Oxford, Cambridge and London Universities and can hardly be regarded as independent, unbiased advisers.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it has never been suggested by anyone that the quality of science at Daresbury is anything other than world-class. Nevertheless the fact remains that there are good scientific reasons for siting the new synchrotron alongside the neutron source and the other facilities at Rutherford, such as the lasers and the nuclear magnetic resonance. As I said, that is the view of the scientific advisers. It was also the view of at least the physicists when we consulted those who will make use of the machine.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a useful maxim to bear in mind is that experts should be on tap, never on top?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords

Greater London Authority: Council Tax
2.53 p.m.
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are confident that, in the first year of the Greater London Authority, the extra cost to the council tax payer will be no more than the predicted 3p at band D.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Greater London Authority's precepts were issued on 17th February. A band D council tax payer is being asked to pay 122.98 for the first year of the GLA. This includes payment for the police, the fire service and transport facilities. Of this, only £1.72 accounts for additional costs of the mayor, the assembly, their support staff and provision for future elections. That is equivalent to 3.3p a week and is in line with our commitment in the White Paper, A Mayor and Assembly for London, that a band D council tax payer would pay about 3p a week.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, does not he agree that when the Government gave an estimate of the costs of the Greater London Authority they gave the clear impression that the funding of other services would remain on a basis comparable with previous years? Is it not true that the council tax payers of Greater London face an increase far in excess of the 3p and a reasonable allowance for inflation because of the reduced funding of the Metropolitan Police, and that does not even take account of uncosted costs in respect of the new headquarters building for future years?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is certainly true that the precept for a year is a precept for a year. However, the figures are comparable with the figures that we originally announced. Therefore I believe that we have fulfilled our commitments in that respect. As regards the ongoing services, the precept for the police has certainly increased substantially, but that relates to an unwinding of past grants and the past use of reserves in that area rather than to any great spending increase.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Greater London Authority budget has been set at above the council tax subsidy limitation level; that is, above capping? Does he believe that that is a good precedent, and is he happy to see it carry on in the future?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Greater London Authority must be subject to the same rules of local authority finance as anywhere else. Therefore, if it was to continue with a certain course in the future that would have consequences, as it would for any other local authority. However, this is the transitional phase. The level at which we have set the precept reflects the demands on the authority in the first year.
Lord Tope: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the past two years the Metropolitan Police force has
806
been reduced by 796 officers? Will he confirm that the substantial increase in the Metropolitan Police precept which he has just mentioned is 17 per cent? Can he explain to Londoners how that represents best value?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to say that there is a 17 per cent increase. However, that replaces past grants and past use of reserves. It is therefore not as big an increase in the spending commitment; it is about a 2 per cent total increase in real spending on the police when one takes into account the other grants. The noble Lord is also correct to say that the numbers of police have fallen. We expect the number to remain roughly at the level of 25,600 over the next year.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that many people will regard it as an anomaly verging on the bizarre that one government department has levied council tax benefit subsidy limitation on a precept decided by the Home Office in its capacity as the current Metropolitan Police Authority for London? In future years is he satisfied that the new Greater London Assembly will have sufficient powers over any actions by the mayor to vire money from one budget head to another?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not accept the term "bizarre". These are transitional arrangements. There are bound to be differing considerations in regard to the future development of the precept for the GLA as compared with a year in which for three months the national Government will effectively take responsibility. The mayor will take full responsibility in the assembly from July. As regards the future arrangements, we had lengthy debates during the course of the then Greater London Authority Bill on the balance of powers between the mayor and the assembly. We believe that we have the balance right. I believe that in most respects my noble friend supported that position. I therefore think that the budget-making arrangements are appropriate. We hope that the mayor and the assembly can adopt sensible budgets which nevertheless meet the substantial needs of London's people.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is it not ironic that one government department should take an action which would inevitably be condemned by another government department if that action had been taken by a local authority?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are bound to be one or two anomalies as we move from one basis of finance to another, and that is partly reflected in this situation. As to the future, clearly "condemned" is not the appropriate word. If in future local authorities take certain decisions, certain consequences follow. That has always been part of local government and in this respect it is an automatic process, which is rather better than the form of control over local authority spending which was favoured by the previous administration.

Chechnya: Human Rights
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the incoming Russian President, Mr Putin, about human rights abuses in Chechnya.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government have made frequent representations to the Russian Government since the outbreak of hostilities in Chechnya, as has the EU. Most recently, the Prime Minister raised Chechnya with Mr Putin on 27th March in a telephone conversation following his victory in the Russian presidential election. Prior to that, representations were made during the Prime Minister's visit to St Petersburg on 11th March and the Foreign Secretary's visit to Moscow on 22nd and 23rd February.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she agree it is important that, given the recent Russian presidential election, if an ethical foreign policy is to be pursued by the British Government, that policy should be made abundantly plain to the new President?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I respectfully agree with the noble Baroness. We have repeatedly set out our concerns in our contacts with the Russians while supporting humanitarian efforts to relieve the suffering. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have also urged Russia to involve the international community, especially the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross, OSCE and the Council of Europe. Russia has agreed the attachment of experts from the Council of Europe to the Russian Ombudsman for Human Rights. The terms have now been agreed and that should happen soon. That will give us an important opportunity to see what is happening on the ground.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this tragic war in Chechnya was partly in response to a state of anarchy in Chechnya in which many thousands of Russian civilians, and also three British telecommunications experts, suffered gross violations of human rights, including abduction, torture and murder, and also partly in response to a request from peaceable Muslims in Dagestan for protection against incursions from Islamist terrorists from Chechnya? Can the noble Baroness, therefore, confirm that the British Government will reassure the newly-elected Russian President that they will respond in a balanced way, not just in a very partial way as appears to have happened so far, and offer help to all who suffer as a result of the war in Chechnya?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I commend the history which the noble Baroness recites. We are very much aware of the internal challenges that the Russian authorities face. But we have made it plain to
808
the Russians that we believe they should respond in a proportionate way. While we have taken a balanced view, that does not prevent us from pressing the Russians very hard to address the issues that we see so painfully exposed on the ground in Chechnya.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is abundant evidence from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other reputable international human rights organisations of the scale of the atrocities committed against the people of Chechnya by the Russian occupying forces and that, notwithstanding all the representations made by Britain and the European Union, those acts have not been mitigated? Does the noble Baroness also agree with the recommendation of Amnesty International that there should be an international investigation of human rights violations in Chechnya; and, if so, can that be put to President Putin so that he can discuss it with Mrs Mary Robinson during her visit, which I believe begins tomorrow?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are aware of the reports of which the noble Lord speaks. We have raised those matters with the Russians and asked them to investigate the reports. We believe that a very useful contribution will be made by the efforts of the Council of Europe, whose representatives are now present on the ground and will have a continuing ability to obtain information. This is a matter which we are pursuing with the Russians, but before we make an informed judgment we need to know the facts as opposed to supposition and rumour.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in any future discussions with the Russian Government, will Her Majesty's Government emphasise the importance of strengthening both the civil and criminal systems of justice? Would that not help to stem the flight of capital and encourage inward investment?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the sentiment behind the noble Lord's question. We have made clear to our Russian partners the most appropriate way to support the democratic process and have urged them to do all that they can to address these issues.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, is the Minister aware that last week Human Rights Watch reported grave abuses by Russian forces in their campaign against Chechnya, including torture, beatings and, on occasion, rape at a filtration camp inside Chechnya? Given that Mr Putin was the architect of Russia's current campaign in Chechnya, can the noble Baroness explain how the Prime Minister could travel to Russia—one of his main aims being,
"to renew and strengthen Britain's ties with R ussia"—
while last week his effort to avoid even speaking to the Austrian Chancellor, who to my knowledge is involved in no wars which indiscriminately harm civilians in his own country, was widely reported?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of the 90 minutes that the Prime Minister spent with Mr Putin during his visit, 50 were devoted to Chechnya. That discussion had to take place in order to air our serious concerns in relation to Chechnya. We believe that at this delicate time it is of crucial importance that we engage fully with the new President of the Russian Federation to try to encourage Russia to behave in a manner which we can condone as opposed to criticise.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that, in line with the Government's ethical foreign policy, in those 50 minutes during his visit to President-elect Putin the Prime Minister stressed the importance of preserving the sovereignty of the other 20 republics in the Russian Federation, such as Dagestan, Sakha and Tatarstan, so that they would not be traumatised by the same treatment received by Chechnya—severe human rights violations and war crimes—should they, in turn, step out of line; and, if not, why not?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness and the House that as to Russia's relations, particularly those with Chechnya, the Prime Minister had an extensive conversation with the new President of the Russian Federation.

Statutory Instruments
3.7 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree Lord Dean of Harptree rose to call attention to the case for a power of delay on statutory instruments, as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, owing to the luck of the ballot, I am glad to have this opportunity to follow up the Unstarred Question on statutory instruments which was debated on 7th December 1999. I am very grateful to noble Lords in all parts of the House who are to take part in the debate. Noble Lords have a rich vein of knowledge of parliamentary procedure which will add greatly to the authority of this debate. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who is to answer the debate. I hope that I shall be equally grateful after he has replied.
Events have moved on since I tabled this Motion. On 22nd February of this year your Lordships decided by a substantial majority to reject an affirmative order. In so doing, the House exercised its undoubted right. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, frequently reminds us, this power is rarely used. I suggest to noble Lords that that vote was one of enormous parliamentary significance and importance. It showed clearly that the interim House had confidence in its legitimacy. I am sure that that is the way in which the Leader of the House would put it.
I was originally attracted to the proposal of the Royal Commission that your Lordships' House might have power to delay statutory instruments for three
810
months, but I believe that that recommendation was overtaken by the vote on 22nd February. I do not expect that this power will be used very often. I assume that it is likely to be used only when the House is strongly opposed to a major order. I do not believe either that the use of this power by the House in any way alters the balance between the two Houses. After all, the Government can re-introduce the same order or amend the order to take into account the views of the House. Ultimately, they will be able to get their statutory instrument, as they can now.
Statutory instruments have a long history. One can trace the germ to the Statute of Proclamations by which Parliament gave King Henry VIII power to legislate by proclamation. Of course, their number and their importance have increased enormously in recent years. They now affect so many aspects of our personal lives. The Royal Commission gave the figures: in 1900 there were 174 general statutory instruments and 821 local ones. By 1998 this had risen to 1,576 general instruments and 1,747 local ones. That is probably inevitable given the complexity and the range of modern legislation.
Your Lordships in all parts of the House would probably accept that we need flexibility. We also need to be able to give a quick response to changing events. Primary legislation is clearly too slow to deal with all the emergencies that may arise. As I think we agreed, the trouble is that the ability of Parliament to scrutinise has not kept pace with the number and importance of statutory instruments. That is not to belittle the valuable work done by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The terms of reference of these committees are limited. They are not able to consider the merits of the orders.
I had the privilege of serving on the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee until I was regulated off, having served my term. I am delighted to see that three of my former colleagues are to speak in this debate: my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. It was my great pleasure to serve with them on that committee. I am sure that the House will listen with very great interest to the advice of those members of the committee regarding their possible further help by undertaking a greater role in the scrutiny of statutory instruments.
What can be done to improve the procedures? There have been various suggestions, some of which have come from another place. Clearly, any changes that your Lordships' House may decide to make will have relevance to the House of Commons. Most of these proposals were discussed eloquently in the Royal Commission's report. I should like to refer to them briefly. One suggestion was that there should be a new category of super affirmative instruments subject to scrutiny before being formally laid. A variant of that is that there should be pre-legislative scrutiny of the most important statutory instruments.

811
The Government deserve great credit for introducing quite a large number of Bills in draft to enable consideration by Parliament and outside interests before they are set in concrete. I think that this development needs improvement because Bills that have been through the pre-legislative scrutiny are still coming forward with large numbers of government amendments. None the less, the principle is sound. I suggest that if it is sound for primary legislation, it is equally sound for the most important of the statutory instruments; namely, secondary legislation.
Another proposal has been made that there should be a sifting committee to make recommendations on the handling of particularly important statutory instruments; for example, by referring them to the relevant Select Committee or an ad hoc committee. I suggest that this could help both Houses to identify and concentrate on the major statutory instruments. If this committee is set up, it might be better for it to be a joint committee of the two Houses so as to avoid duplication.
My next point is whether the House should be able to amend statutory instruments. The Royal Commission advised against that. I suggest, with due respect to it, that there is a case for amendment as well as the blunter instrument of rejection. This argument would be less strong in cases where statutory instruments have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny.
All these proposals for procedural reform need to take into account devolution and the relationship between the devolved bodies and Westminster. There are many questions, including the handling of statutory instruments, that require attention. I am very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in his place today. I know that he has made a special study of these problems and the way in which they should be resolved.
I hope that it is now felt that the time is right to proceed with these amendments. The Royal Commission made certain recommendations on the composition of the House. I think it is generally recognised that it is very unlikely that these proposals would make any progress in this Parliament. It is going to be difficult enough to obtain agreement anyway on composition. But the atmosphere will not be right to have agreement in the run-up to the next general election. That is not the case as far as concerns procedural reforms where there is a wide measure of agreement. Reforms are already under way. Parliament has agreed to set up a Select Committee on Human Rights. A Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs seems to be broadly agreed, and it is probably only a matter of a short time before that is established.
My plea is that these varied suggestions for much needed improvement in the scrutiny of statutory instruments should be considered now. I hope that the House will agree that the Liaison Committee or the Procedure Committee should be invited to make recommendations for early action. I hope also that the
812
noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will be prepared to give this plea a fair wind. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.19 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, both on winning the ballot and on introducing this very important debate. I congratulate him also on the excellent and dispassionate way in which he has done so. I find myself in the rare position of agreeing pretty well entirely with a speech made from the other side of your Lordships' House.
In a way, I am sorry that the noble Lord had 10 introduce this debate because I regard it as quite deplorable that the usual channels have not arranged a full-scale debate on the mode of operation of the interim House. They should have done that. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, reminded us about the particular vote on a statutory instrument a few weeks ago. I remember arguing at the time that, although we had the powers, we really should not have done what we did then without first debating our whole new approach to this issue. However, I was unable 10 persuade a sufficient number of noble Lords of the correctness of that view. While agreeing entirely with the noble Lord, I am not happy that we are making up new rules as we go along. Apart from today's debate, we must have a full-scale debate about the way the interim House should and will behave.
I regard the interim House—the House in which we are currently sitting and standing—as more legitimate. It will be even more legitimate still when the deficiency of numbers of Liberal Democrat and Labour Peers is made up, I hope in the very near future. I am convinced that the interim House can be an excellent revising Chamber—perhaps I may add another acerbic remark—especially when the problem of lack of resources and facilities is faced up to and solved. Therefore, while I am on the subject of debates, I think it is equally deplorable that the usual channels have not arranged a full-scale debate on the central question of resources and facilities.
On the report of the Royal Commission, Chapter 7 contains a great deal with which we could agree. Perhaps I may add, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said, that much of that does not seem to require moving on to further stages of reform, much as we would like them. We can do it now and I think that we ought to do it now. In the evidence we gave to the Royal Commission, my noble friend Lord Barnett and I emphasised that side of the subject because we felt that concentrating on what we called "practicalities" might be at least as important as concentrating on the vexed question of membership and so on. That remains my view and I hope that it remains the view of my noble friend. I look forward to hearing from him on that matter.
Perhaps I may add one specific point on secondary legislation which we made to the Royal Commission. It is our view that if we scrutinised secondary legislation more seriously, it would improve our ability

813
to deal with primary legislation. One of the reasons why we go in for a great deal of nit-picking and generally "on the face of the Bill" stuff on primary legislation is precisely that we do not trust what will happen when the secondary legislation, which often contains the real meat, comes forward. So we insist on it happening in primary legislation. We could become very much more efficient if we went down the path to which the Royal Commission somewhat guides us and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Dean, guides us and with which I totally agree.
In our evidence my noble friend Lord Barnett and I made a point—I have not consulted my noble friend on what I am about to say but the noble Lord, Lord Dean, also raised the point—on which I am now not sure that we are right. We said that we should be able to reject secondary legislation but we should also be able to amend it. Obviously, we need to retain the right to do so, but, on reflection and having thought about some of the examples, my judgment is that amending secondary legislation could be so complicated, given how important it is to the Bill, that I am beginning to think that it might be more important for us to say, "We vote against this piece of secondary legislation for the following reasons. We think that the Government ought to bring back the secondary legislation with amendments from their expert draftsmen that meet our requirements". In other words, I am not at all certain that I want to get into the business of redrafting secondary legislation, on which one often lacks the expertise. That is about the only way in which I backtrack from the original position which my noble friend and I took on that point.
I wish to emphasise two points which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, emphasised. I do so to show my support. I strongly favour the idea of pre-consideration of secondary legislation and I favour the idea of sifting. We do not want to look at all such secondary legislation. But if we had a committee to sift it and one could go to the committee and say, "We think that this is one that you ought to look at", it would improve our efficiency, which is very much in my mind in approaching these matters.
The only other point I wish to make relates to something which puzzles me about Chapter 7 of the report. Chapter 7 seems to accept the view—I think it is on the preliminary stage—that we can have a vote, the Commons simply takes no notice of us and after three months the secondary legislation is carried. Of one thing I am absolutely certain. If noble Lords devote some of their time and effort in any way whatever to secondary legislation, whether we vote to send it back for a rethink or vote to annul it, which means "rethink and redo it", the Commons should be obliged to respond with a reasoned argument, as they have to do on amendments and so on, before we have to back down.
My final remark, which may horrify one or two noble Lords, is that I believe that both with primary and secondary legislation the age of ping-pong ought to end. In other words, as part of the ultimate reforms, we should have the full right to say, "We don't like it".
814
But if the Commons have gone through correct procedures to argue against us, the nonsense which I have seen over a great many years—I fear that we shall see quite a lot of it this year—of legislation going backwards and forwards, the scene repeated, with the Commons begging to differ, has to come to an end. Your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber should have the right to do two things: to say to the Commons, "You have got it wrong and we are going to vote against it". But if they insist on bringing it back and will not give in to us, we should do what we all do in our personal lives; and when it eventually goes wrong, we can simply retain the right to say, "We told you so". I would rather have the "I told you so" position than the ping-pong position, which I really do not believe is a great credit to this House or to Parliament generally.
I conclude as I began. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, has done us a great favour. I very much hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer will respond positively. But, ultimately, it is up to your Lordships' House to start to press about what it would like to do.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I am very glad to speak in this debate in support of my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree. My noble friend was for four years a most valued member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and his speech makes an outstanding case for improved scrutiny for secondary legislation.
We would all agree that the quality of our lawmaking is crucial; and our laws are increasingly made through secondary legislation. The Procedure Committee of the House of Commons in 1996 and very recently has drawn attention to the inadequacy of scrutiny of such legislation in that House. Indeed, it is this House which in recent years has shown the most concern for secondary legislation. But there is still, as my noble friend Lord Dean said, much we must do if we are to equip ourselves effectively and properly to scrutinise across the board. I suspect that there would be agreement on all sides of the House that this is an area where there is a very clear role for this House to fill.
I also see it as a promising time to make positive proposals. There is already a recognition that pre-legislative scrutiny, of the kind undertaken by the Burns committee for the Financial Services and Markets Bill and for deregulation orders under the admirable procedures of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, can improve our legislation. There is also an acceptance by government that both primary and secondary legislation must comply with the Human Rights Act and be certified to do so. A disciplined, consultative, regulation-making process will make for better, fairer and more efficient regulation.
On behalf of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, I had the privilege of giving oral evidence to both the Royal Commission on House of Lords Reform and to the House of Commons

815
Procedure Committee on its recent inquiry into delegated legislation. I warmly welcome the recommendations about delegated legislation in both reports, although in the case of the Royal Commission I think its recommendations did not go far enough. My starting point is the Royal Commission's recommendation 35:
"There is a strong case for enhanced Parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation. The reformed second Chamber should make a strong contribution in this area".
What we in this House must, I believe, address, and address now, is how to respond to the recommendation s of the Royal Commission and the House of Commons Procedure Committee so as to create a more effective scrutiny system which builds on the strengths of the House of Lords. I should like to suggest five possible ways in which we could go about that. I do not seek to be prescriptive, because there are obvious variants.
First, the House should be given a formal power to delay secondary legislation. It is true that the House has asserted power recently to reject secondary legislation; however, I still believe that a delaying power would be a useful way in most cases to seek to work towards an amended order. If we adopt a delaying power, it should be for a period of six months, to accommodate the processes of trying to agree change and the proposed increased 60-day praying time for negative instruments. I regard a formal power of delay as valuable.
Secondly, there should be a sifting mechanism for statutory instruments. The Royal Commission supported the establishment of a new joint sifting committee. Alternatively, it suggested that the Lords might set up a sifting committee on its own, perhaps inviting the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee to take on the task. I hope it is not idleness when I say that I do not believe that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee would be other than the second-best option. The less bureaucratic option would be to involve those Lords who are members of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, who, with their legal advisers, have to plough through a myriad of statutory instruments in any event, and ask them to perform this additional role. Another House of Lords committee to carry out the sifting exercise seems a potentially profligate use of our limited resources, and admirable only for the process of felling more forests.
Thirdly, there should be a scrutiny mechanism for statutory instruments which had been sifted as requiring detailed scrutiny. The question of what to do with statutory instruments that are sifted as "high profile"—the "A" sift, in the terms of our own European Union Committee—seems to be one of the weakest points in the Royal Commission report. I suggest that an ad hoc committee should be appointed swiftly by the Committee of Selection to scrutinise each such instrument identified by the sifting committee. The committee could then hold hearings in public involving the Minister and other interested bodies, perhaps in the form of an all-day seminar rather than the more traditional form of a somewhat
816
slow-moving Select Committee. It could examine carefully the regulatory impact assessments, which are now routinely prepared in most cases, and which in most cases similarly receive very little parliamentary scrutiny. I am conscious that this proposal will have resource implications. But like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I believe that if the ideas are right we should start planning the necessary resource level now.
Fourthly, there should be a category of "super affirmatives", as it has become known in the jargon, recommended by the House of Commons Procedure Committee and supported by the Royal Commission. Some statutory instruments are so important, or so sensitive, that Parliament should consider them in draft, so that they can be amended in the light of consultation rather than waiting for them to be la id formally before Parliament and found wanting. It may well be that few statutory instruments should, or would, fall into this category. But on such occasions, I suggest that there is a good precedent in the deregulation Act procedures for such instruments to be laid in draft. We can all think of instruments which should fall into this category. It seems that it would be possible for the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, in examining secondary legislation proposed in Bills, to identify at that stage which instruments, even if in rare cases, should be subject to the "super affirmative" procedure.
My fifth and final specific point is that the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 should be amended to extend the statutory "praying time" in respect of negative resolution instruments from 40 days to 60 days. Judging from the experience of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in scrutinising deregulation orders, where the initial scrutiny period is 60 days, I cannot see how in-depth scrutiny of some of the more controversial statutory instruments should be confined to 40 days. Indeed, in our own recent look at the controversial proposal to extend licensing hours on Sundays, we were grateful that the 60-day scrutiny period was extended as a welcome by-product of the short half-term Recess. But within that 60 days the committee had to meet six times to consider the proposal and to weigh the submissions of the 84 organisations and individuals who took the time to write to us about it. If we are serious about scrutiny, a 60-day proposal would seem more appropriate.
The volume of secondary legislation has increased, is increasing and is unlikely to diminish. That has been the thread running through this debate, and I look forward to hearing others of my colleagues on the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee make their contribution. The statistics that the Government recently provided in response to my Questions for Written Answer show that the increase is particularly true for negative instruments—those instruments which Parliament at present almost always nods through without comment. At the same time, the importance of much of the content of secondary legislation is increasing. It covers increasingly complex issues, perhaps especially in relation to information technology, where the goalposts are constantly changing and which is therefore a prime candidate for

817
secondary legislation. It covers increasingly sensitive instruments, especially as we grapple with the immediate consequences of this Government's highly commendable and highly courageous step of incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights. Much, if not most, incompatibility with the European convention, and so with our own Human Rights Act, is likely to lie for consideration in the context of secondary legislation.
Whether we like it or not, we cannot stop the upward trend of secondary legislation. If we fail to take account of it in the House of Lords by pickling our scrutiny procedures in the aspic of the past, we shall be failing in our task as legislators. Seeing the interest in this debate on all sides of the House, I believe that we can, we must, and we want to rise this challenge. If we do so, we shall assist this House to become the second Chamber that the country merits.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, in meetings of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, most of us do not usually add much once our chairman, the distinguished noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, has spoken. I certainly rise to speak with some trepidation. I remember coming on to the committee over two years ago and realising that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, was both a model and a mentor from whom one could learn how to conduct the no-nonsense business of that committee. The noble Lord also has a characteristic style, which is the style underlying this debate. It is an apparently technical debate, but I want to argue that it is one of considerable constitutional significance.
There are good reasons why the Wakeham commission has devoted a whole chapter to the issue of statutory instruments. The basic point is that legislation now takes place in a whole variety of ways, and what one might call non-orthodox forms of legislation are growing in importance. Statutory instruments alone have nearly doubled in the past 20 years and have risen to a particularly high plateau in the past eight years.
We now make laws in a number of ways: as primary legislation; as secondary legislation—that, in turn, appears in a variety of forms; by the creation of bodies which themselves have legislative powers—the extreme case, of course, is European legislation, but, as noble Lords who have listened to some of the debate will know very well, the Financial Services and Markets Bill creates such a body; and, of course, by guidance, guidelines, directives, or whatever they may be called. That raises enormous problems of scrutiny. Indeed, it raises questions as to the proper role of Parliament. I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is to speak later in the debate because I know that that is one of his special concerns.
One must agree with the Wakeham commission that the sheer volume and level of detail of legislation is overwhelming, notably for the elected Chamber which has so many other functions. I do not wish to be a bore
818
on the subject, but here again, in the case of secondary legislation, I believe that we have a good case for an appointed Chamber with Members who have the expertise and, incidentally, the time and who do not have to seek publicity. That is one of my arguments for a particular way forward in that regard.
The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is: what do we do at the end of the scrutiny process? The Royal Commission does not want us to have the power to amend statutory instruments. It argues that a comprehensive system of amendments,
"would negate the advantages of secondary legislation'",
whereas a limited system,
"would be difficult to justify".
In that connection, it occurred to me to look at the instructive case of the Welsh Assembly which, as noble Lords know, in its legislative activity deals only with secondary legislation. It is well worth perusing the Official Record of the National Assembly for Wales. It is also quite enjoyable. Debates are pleasingly informal, as when the Presiding Officer interrupts a speaker and says, "Please do not make the same speech as you made earlier, Geraint!" With respect to the equivalent of statutory instruments in the Assembly, the Secretary responsible—say, the Secretary for Health and Social Services—introduces an order after it has been considered in draft by the Legislation Committee.
The Assembly is then invited to go through the following stages: first, to consider the report of the committee; secondly, to approve the principle of the order; thirdly, to consider, approve or reject amendments; and, finally, to approve the order. Frequently, that is an uncontroversial and rapid process. However, on 22nd March this year, for example, an order concerning NHS charges had a narrow majority on the question of principle: 25 Members voted for, 22 voted against and there were four abstentions. Abstentions are listed in all cases. An amendment was then debated with one speaker for and one against, as allowed by Standing Orders. It was rejected by a similar majority. In the end, 26 Assembly Members voted for the order and 24 against, with four abstentions. In other words, the Welsh Assembly has found a way of debating and, if the majority so wish, amending secondary legislation. It has done so without encountering the problems suggested by the Wakeham report. Can we learn from it?
No doubt it will be pointed out that there is a difference between a Secretary of State who promulgates instruments and an elected Parliament which makes laws. However, I believe that, as a minimum, Parliament must find a way of expressing its view on the conditions under which a statutory instrument would be acceptable. Admittedly, the absolute veto is a clumsy method to this end, especially if Parliament wishes to add something, as in the case of the freepost for the London mayoral elections, and has to reject an otherwise acceptable order to make its point.
The Wakeham commission suggests an alternative process which is, however, very elaborate; that is, consideration of drafts, sifting of instruments, possibly

819
consultation, and eventually exercising the new power of delay, coupled with a request for an explanatory memorandum. Apparent loss of power in this regard would not worry me unduly. However, I cannot help feeling that the Welsh Assembly has found a more elegant method. At the very least, the exercise of the delaying power should be accompanied by a resolution which specifies the conditions under which a statutory instrument would be acceptable. Here I find myself in an identical position to that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
Other measures could be added (and might be worth discussing on another occasion) to make the scrutiny of statutory instruments more effective and also in some ways more predictable. In a sense, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee is developing case law for what must be in primary legislation and what, at any rate, must be subject to affirmative procedure. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, was a member of the committee, he insisted that, as a rule, the creation of quasi-judicial institutions and sanctions should not be done by statutory instrument. A set of such principles might well be a useful guide for legislation.
Those are urgent questions. The Royal Commission may well be right that they can be dealt with by amending the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. However, the relevance goes much deeper: it has to do with the future of Parliament in our democracy, no less.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a rare privilege to be able to speak in this debate and to follow the noble Lords who have already spoken, and in particular my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree. I congratulate him on his wholly constructive speech. For once, I am able to agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said. I agree wholly with him that the time is right for a full-scale debate; it should already have taken place. We must get on with it now.
I agree with the noble Lord that there must be a preconsideration of statutory instruments. Some time ago I served—I believe that I still serve—on the Statutory Instruments Committee. However, that committee is limited to vires. It is also sometimes limited to commenting that matters have been dealt with in an unusual situation. It says no more than that; it does not comment on merit or anything of that order. However, I believe that that is the way forward and would represent an important development. Again, I agree with the five principles, so neatly arranged and expounded by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon.
The Royal Commission is to be congratulated on the intrinsic worth of the recommendations concerned with the workings of this House, such as our procedures, conventions and the setting up of committees, on which there was unanimity. It is totally plain from the manner in which such recommendations were expressed—and I am glad to be able to say this in
820
the presence of my noble friend Lord Wakeham—that such matters should receive the appraisal of your Lordships with a view to implementation before the second stage of substantive reform, if such be the wish of the House.
One such matter—and it is only one—is the procedure by which this House may exercise its function to contain the misuse of executive power by resort to secondary legislation. I shall return to that later but the Government wish to defer consideration on that until the second stage of legislative reform. So there is a clear issue between what could be the sense of the House and what would be the will of the Government.
There can be no second-stage legislation until the question of composition—the stumbling block—on which the Royal Commission was not unanimous can be resolved by Parliament. However, the Royal Commission could not have contemplated that such a matter of our own domestic procedures should lack any consideration for such a long, uncertain period of time. There could be no such assurance. The Royal Commission could not have contemplated, of course, that every recommendation as to the workings of this House should receive immediate consideration with a view to implementation unless such were the wish of the House.
The object of the debate is to commend but one such recommendation to your Lordships for immediate consideration. Noble Lords will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Dean for having introduced this debate. The opportunity is indeed welcome. There is not now and never has been any commitment by government to seek the approval of Parliament for any recommendation in the report, albeit that the reappraisal of our procedures is not a matter for Parliament; it is not a matter for government; it is a matter for this House.
It was apparent from the debate on the report that the Government are no longer prepared to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider proposals for substantive reform. One is left with the impression that the Government are not prepared to entertain any reappraisal of our procedures. The current attitude of government in that context, as concerns the power to delay secondary legislation and the Salisbury Convention, which cuts upon that problem, has been evinced on many occasions at Question Time. That is referred to at pages 21 to 23 of the Library Notes. Those are the Questions with which I was involved, asking that action should be taken.
The attitude evinced by the Government has always been: wait for substantive reform which must, inevitably, comprise the composition. Other excuses for inertia have been made; for example, that there should be no cherry-picking.
Whereas the Salisbury doctrine has not been defined or recorded in the Companion or Erskine May. the exercise of restraint to vote against secondary legislation has been recorded at page 187 of the Companion. But the entitlement to reject secondary legislation was affirmed in the benchmark debate of

821
the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whose Motion was agreed to, and the entitlement was acknowledged by the Royal Commission at paragraph 7.39 of its report.
It is not the purpose of this speech to canvass the merits of any particular approach. That is a matter for the consideration of the constitutional committee which, it is hoped, will soon be set up in accordance with the key Recommendation 21 of the Royal Commission, or perhaps by the Procedure Committee or the Liaison Committee, if that constitutional committee is not established.
At all events, critical amendments and Motions are dealt with at page 187 of the Companion, which relates to Motions not challenging the delegated legislation, or a Motion to invite the Government to amend delegated legislation on which there is no Division, or a Motion regretting some element of delegated legislation which, if carried, has no practical effect but only serves to record a point of view. This will, on any showing, require very substantial amendment, and it requires that now; that is, if this House is to fulfil its function to exercise effective control over the executive.
An example of such abuse of power was to seek by order to treat the Greater London Authority as a local government authority when no such principle had been established in primary legislation.
The question of the exercise of self-restraint is considered in the Royal Commission report at paragraphs 7.31 to 7.38 and at Recommendations 41 and 43. Those advocate a suspensory veto which goes some way to meet the problem. At Question Time on 7th December, I suggested that a new convention should be introduced under which your Lordships' House, on a Division, could move to request another place to delay the instrument in some amended form which, if not relaid in a form acceptable to this House, could then be rejected. That goes some way to meet the proposal of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that statutory instruments should be amendable.
Taking into account the criteria of the Salisbury doctrine, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out that, during the 1970s, both parties in opposition voted against statutory instruments. In that debate the noble and learned Lord pointed out also that the suggested rule of longstanding practice did not exist and the suggested convention not to reject statutory legislation entirely failed.
It is accepted that, under extant procedures of the House, we cannot amend or suggest amendments to secondary legislation. As a general practice, restraint should be exercised as regards rejection. But, where the Government resort to secondary legislation on a matter of principle, for the sake of administrative convenience as distinct from the implementation of the principle already enshrined in primary legislation, rejection is the only means available to restrain an abuse of power.
822
I very much like the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that, first, we should have the formal power to delay, indicating the form of amendment that we would want; secondly, that, if that were rejected, there should be a reasoned response; and, thirdly, that a new regime along those lines should be introduced so that we can avoid ping-pong.
So far, the Government's attitude has been contradictory. On the one hand, it is asserted that it is the function of the House to hold the executive to account. On the other hand, it is asserted that the right to reject secondary legislation either does not exist or ought not to be exercised. That is a somewhat neuronic approach. The hope is that the House will soon take the matter into its own hands.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, not least in joining him and other noble Lords in expressing gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, who has once again put us all in his debt. That is so partly because he initiated the discussion and partly because his speech set the tone of what, with respect, seems to me to be an exceptionally constructive debate.
Furthermore, those of us who did not take part in the wider-ranging debate are enabled to pay our tribute to the Royal Commission. Even when one ventures to differ from a proposal, as I venture to do as regards the power to delay, one must recognise the masterly discussion in Chapter 7 on the whole issue of subordinate legislation.
Normally, secondary legislation does not throw up any problems when it is merely the "nuts and bolts", to adopt the phrase used by the late Bob Cryer, a greatly admired chairman of the Joint Select Committee. Adjusting the nuts and bolts, the final adjustment of the machine, does no more than to complete what should be clearly laid down in a blueprint in the primary legislation. Nevertheless, occasionally, secondary legislation goes beyond that. Sometimes that is due to the executive trying it on; sometimes, unexpectedly, a major matter is thrown up.
In the discussion in 1994, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, pointed out that the local government orders were such a matter on which your Lordships would be fully entitled to exercise their prerogative—indeed, responsibility—of voting, if thought right, against an order. Then there is the occasional secondary legislation which is reported by the Joint Select Committee as being unusual and unexpected. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will excuse me if I remind him of the unlamented Child Support Act, which was a skeleton Bill. It went so far wrong that the Government introduced an order under power to make transitory provision which altered the right retrospectively that had already accrued under the main Act. A government will always be tempted to do that when they get into a mess, even if they are an aggrandising government.

823
There will be cases in which your Lordships will want to exercise the responsibility that was clearly claimed in 1994. As the noble Lord, Lord Dean, pointed out, we had a recent example in relation to the mailshots in the London mayoral election. That was perceived by your Lordships as going far beyond the nuts and bolts. It was a question of democracy—the right of an electorate to be fully and accurately informed as to the issues on which it was called upon to choose. That was important as showing that the 1994 resolution, although it would rarely be needed if only because it made government departments much more careful, nevertheless could be used when a major issue transpired.
Before turning to the question of the three months' delay which the Royal Commission recommends as being the power that your Lordships should have in voting against subordinate legislation, perhaps I may first mention the question of amendment. Like most people who have been occupied with the problem—as I have, I confess, for decades, merely on the ground of old age—I am attracted by the logic of allowing parliamentary amendment of subordinate legislation. I agree with the Royal Commission in finally negativing that. First, it is certain that we would never get it from the executive. Secondly, there is a good reason for that; it would negative the advantages of subordinate legislation which are so clearly set out by the Royal Commission.
As regards the three months' delay, it is with trepidation that I find myself differing from the Royal Commission and from the noble Lords, Lord Alexander of Weedon and Lord Campbell of Alloway. In my view, it gives both too much and too little. It gives too much because the Government might sometimes be up against a timetable, as they were on the mailshot issue. Even if that were the case, a three-months' delay takes the matter out of the hands of the Government in the other place and asserts our supremacy. On the other hand, it also gives too little. Again, in the ordinary case where there is no timetable, an obstinate government—and after all, all governments are obstinate—will sit out three months' delay without any real difficulty.
We sometimes thoughtlessly use the phrase "asking the other place to think again". The recent vote on sex education in schools is another example of how unreal that phrase is. First, the other place does not collectively sit down and excogitate the issue from the beginning in the fight of the debate in your Lordships' House. Secondly, what happened immediately after the vote on sex education showed that the concept of the Government "thinking again" is quite unreal. What they do is to try to get away with as much as they can, as do any government.
Therefore, with great trepidation I should not agree with the proposal for a three-month delay. We have what we want in a sense through our present powers and they way that they are used. I venture to be greatly attracted by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which has been taken up by other noble Lords; that in effect amendments can be proposed in debate. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, whose absence we feel today, has developed such a technique. We do not
824
really need the three-month delay. We have all the power that we need under the present regime. I merely add that we are at a crisis of the constitution, because we are rewriting the constitution. In the end, there is the question of parliamentary government or executive government.
We are privileged that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is to reply to the debate. He sits in the very control chamber of the powerhouse of a commanding and aggrandising central and centralising government. I hope that he will reassure us that those of us who celebrated the Glorious Revolution a decade ago can still glory in it. We gloried in it because it vindicated parliamentary government as against executive government. I trust that we may continue to do so.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble and learned Lord's final words. I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, on introducing this extremely important debate.
The question is: should this interim House have those powers of delay? As the Motion refers to the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, I suggested to him that he might care to stay to hear what I have to say because I hate to be even mildly controversial, but I propose to be so as regards his commission. The Motion refers to the commission, but, frankly, it did not need to because the commission is irrelevant to this debate.
As the commission was chaired by such a nice noble Lord as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham—I know from my experience of another place and here that he is an extremely nice man—it never had a chance of producing anything other than a useless report. That was shown when he was given as vice-chairman Gerald Kaufman. It was quite impossible to produce a unanimous report of any kind with Gerald Kaufman on the commission, but the noble Lord managed it, with three variations included. Those three variations are about the worst part of the report so I shall not refer to them too much, but the report itself and those three recommendations or options would produce a hybrid House. That would certainly be even worse than this interim House.
I have no reason to want to see the Wakeham commission report introduced into this debate. This House itself is far from ideal. It is supposedly called an "interim House". If it were an ideal House I should not be in it. It would be a wholly elected House. I know that the noble Lord would not like it, but it has something to do with democracy. The idea of a democracy is that there should be two elected Chambers. I see the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, shaking his head. He must have started off doing that in his impartial way when he began discussing the issue.
The plain fact is that in an elected second Chamber, of course, one would not have such nice people as ill of us. Some of the Members would not be very good.

825
The other place has 650 honourable and right honourable Members. Is anyone suggesting that they are all nice, decent, good Members of Parliament? Of course not. In an elected Chamber one does not always get nice people. One gets some difficult ones; and what is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with having difficult Members in a Chamber. But we have now an interim Chamber for better or worse.
It has been suggested, including in this debate, that we must have lawyers and the independent Cross-Benchers. I shall not dwell on that point, because if anyone cares to consider the independence of Cross-Benchers, it will be found that they are anything but. Some of them should be sitting on the Benches opposite, as I have told them from time to time, except that they would probably find that there is not anything Right-wing enough for them there. There is no reason whatever why we should have all those professionals, Bishops and other religious leaders. If we want to take advice from such people, we can do so. They do not need to be Members of your Lordships' House at all. But I digress. I do so only because I wanted to upset the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, a little. I see that I am not even doing that.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I did not want to intervene to stop the noble Lord, but I should have thought that he has known me for long enough to know that he has to try a good deal harder before he upsets me!
Lord Barnett: My Lords, that is why I asked the noble Lord to stay. I knew that he would not be too upset.
If, as I see from the nodding and shaking of heads around the Chamber, noble Lords do not want an elected second Chamber, it is much better that we have a nominated one—nominated in whatever way noble Lords would like. That would be better than a hybrid House as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham.
The problem of the powers, if one had an elected or even a new second Chamber, is important. Everyone agrees that the other place must be paramount. I agree with that view. Recently, I referred to something that the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was quoted as having said—I am not sure whether it was true: he was going to be bolshy and ignore the Salisbury Convention. When I said that to him, he both nodded and shook his head, so I was not clear what he was saying. No doubt his Deputy Leader will tell us.
The Salisbury Convention is just that—a convention. If we have a new Chamber or this Chamber is strengthened in some way, we should entrench the Salisbury Convention in legislation and stop talking about conventions. That could be done to limit the powers of this Chamber, so allowing the other place to be paramount. At the moment, we have this so-called interim House. I agree with those who have said that we should be able to make the government of the day think again in relation to secondary legislation.
826
I entirely agree with everything that has been said on that subject, and we do not need to wait to do it. It can be done now. My noble friend Lord Peston, in his customary wise way, said that it should be done only once: we should not be playing ping-pong with the other place and with the Government. In that way we diminish the responsibility, the powers and the respect in which the House is held, and so I hope that if we do take these powers it would be to use them just once.
As I have said, one does not need to worry too much about the Wakeham commission report, because its recommendations will not be implemented. The noble Lord knows that: he is smiling now, but he knows very well they will not. Can you imagine that if this Government were re-elected and at the start of a new Parliament the then Prime Minister—the present one, I assume—would have as a high priority instituting a new major piece of constitutional legislation? One has to be joking. It will not happen. This interim House is going to last for rather a long period of time, in my view.
The Wakeham commission report, from which this Motion has taken some recommendations, got it right in this respect. That is not too surprising. Out of 132 recommendations it would be astonishing if it had not got one or two right—and it did—but we are told that we should not cherrypick from the report. Why should we not? In any case we are not even talking of the Wakeham commission recommendations: these are the ones that my noble friend Lord Peston and I set out to them in our evidence. So this really could be said to be our evidence. The plain fact is that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why one should not cherrypick at least one or two of the good points in the report.
Let me revert to the Motion. My noble friend Lord Peston agreed with what we submitted in evidence at the time: that we should seek to allow secondary legislation both to be voted on in your Lordships' House and to be amended. He had doubts about the amending part. He has not discussed this with me—to my regret, and I will talk to him about that later. The reason that he gave is quite a good one, actually: despite all our brilliant legal minds and great parliamentary minds, we are not well equipped to draft amending legislation. We should therefore simply throw it out and let the government of the day do the necessary work. I agree with him on that. There is no harm in doing it that way, but it is important that the interim House should have those powers because, as I say, we are going to last a long time and so there is no need to wait.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, asked the Minister to give it a fair wind. I hope he does so but, frankly, it does not matter. It is not a matter for the Government. We should remind ourselves that we in your Lordships' House are in command of our own rules. It would be nice if he gave it a fair wind but, frankly, if he, the usual channels and the authorities of the House decide that we should not have it, that has nothing to do with it. We are in charge—we, the Members of your Lordships' House—and if they do not like it, that is just too bad. So I say to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, of whom I am very fond,

827
as he knows—just as I am of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham—that I hope he will give it a fair wind. It is a very sensible suggestion that these powers should be taken by your Lordships' House. At the same time I hope that your Lordships will remember that it is not for them to decide. We can decide, and should.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I, too, welcome this debate and join with others on congratulating my noble friend Lo rd Dean of Harptree on initiating it. Indeed I commend my noble friend on his persistence in returning to this extremely important matter. I think I now know how one of my students feels at the end of a seminar, saying that, "Everything I wanted to say has already been sail". Where I differ from the student is that I intend to carry on!
Before get to the meat of what I should like to say, I just want to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who provokes me with his opening comments about democracy. I disagree with him. He is taking one particular definition of democracy. He is defining it solely in terms of process: that is, election. If you define democracy as the translation of the wishes of the electors into legislative output, then you come up with a very different form of parliament. I think that is a preferable definition and it also entails looking at Parliament in a holistic manner, and not simply concentrating on this Chamber.
I now turn to the heart of the debate itself. This is, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has said, a very important debate because in looking at delegated legislation we are addressing a problem of Parliament, not a problem of the House of Lords. It is quite possible to move forward on this issue without impinging on the wider debate about the shape of the upper House.
The upper House, whatever form it takes, should join with the other place in subjecting delegated legislation to effective scrutiny. That there is a need for the effective serutiny of delegated legislation cannot be doubted. The phenomenal growth in the volume of statutory instruments has already been mentioned and has been recorded by a range of authoritative bodies. It was noted by the Hansard Society Commission on the Legislative Process in 1992, by the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons in 1996 and now by the Royal Commission. All three bodies agree that the means of parliamentary scrutiny are inadequate for the task. Each makes recommendations for strengthening scrutiny.
The report of the Commons Procedure Committee on Delegated Legislation in 1996 was a powerful document in favour of reform. I should perhaps declare an interest in that I was one of the five witnesses to give oral evidence to the committee. The committee offered 18 recommendations, the most significant of which are mentioned in the report of the Wakeham commission and have been touched upon already by several speakers.
828
It recommended a new category of "super affirmative" instruments. It favoured the creation of a new sifting committee to decide which negative instruments merited debate. The sifting committee was to look at statutory instruments in the context of political importance, thus distinguishing it from the work of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which of course is concerned with the technical merits. It also recommended a point that was touched upon by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon that the "praying time" in respect of negative resolution instruments should be extended from 40 to 60 days, and that debates in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments take place on substantive Motions.
The committee's report makes an excellent case for these recommendations. The Royal Commission in effect makes similar recommendations for your Lordships' House. Indeed, as the commission records on page 72,
"our proposals are very much in line with the spirit of the Procedure Committee's report".
It goes on to say that the two could be considered in parallel. This, I think, is a crucial point. As I have mentioned, it is not a case of looking at the problem purely from the perspective of your Lordships' House. It has to be considered in a holistic manner; that is, from the perspective of Parliament. Indeed this is intrinsic to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It favours a joint sifting committee. As it argues, a Joint Committee ensures consistency of approach and avoids duplication of staff effort. I endorse that recommendation. As an alternative to a Joint Committee, as my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon has mentioned, it recommends the House establishing its own procedure, perhaps employing the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee for the purpose. Like my noble friend, and for the reasons given by the Royal Commission, I favour a Joint Committee.
The Royal Commission offers a well argued case for reform and is highly persuasive. I believe that the case for action is overwhelming. However, like several other noble Lords, I would qualify my endorsement of that in two respects. The first is in respect of its conclusion that there is no case for making it possible to amend statutory instruments once they have been formally laid before Parliament. Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I recognise the difficulties of permitting amendment by Parliament. In large measure, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, mentioned, it undermines the case for having delegated legislation and this point was well recognised by the Commons Procedure Committee in its report.
However, there is a case for Parliament being able to persuade government to withdraw and reintroduce a statutory instrument that is clearly flawed. The Procedure Committee effectively squared the circle by recommending that it be possible for conditional amendments to be moved in a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. It would then be open to the Government to withdraw and re-lay the instrument,

829
with some regard to the terms of the amendments agreed in Committee; alternatively, it could of course seek the formal approval of the House to the unamended instrument. It would also be possible, under its recommendations, to move conditional amendments on the Floor of the House. If passed, it would then be open to the Government to withdraw and re-lay the instrument. Technically, the House does not amend the instrument, but in effect it is inducing the Government to amend it. That, I think, is the way to proceed, and I recommend that your Lordships' House should adopt a similar approach.
I differ also from the Royal Commission in its recommendation that the powers of this House be limited in respect of delegated legislation. The limited powers it recommends would, I think, be too much of an encouragement for the Government simply to employ their majority in the House of Commons to override any vote in your Lordships' House to reject a draft instrument or to annul an instrument. I believe that the existing powers are adequate. Delegated legislation is not analogous to primary legislation, simply by definition. Not only can the Government relay an instrument; they can, if your Lordships' House continues to reject it, embody it in primary legislation and thus, ultimately, ensure its passage under the provisions of the Parliament Act. That fact is recognised by the Royal Commission, but it makes the point in suggesting that the existing absolute veto power is more apparent than real. However, in that respect, I disagree with the Royal Commission. Introducing legislation to give effect to a rejected instrument is time consuming, eats into the Government's legislative programme and, of course, if the House rejects the legislation, entails a delay of one year. That prospect gives the House much more leverage than the capacity to delay an instrument for three months.
Furthermore, I believe that this House is perfectly entitled to use its power to annul an instrument. The reasons for that are twofold; one is present and one is prospective. First, delegated legislation is designed to provide a means to an end. The ends are stipulated, or should be stipulated, in the primary legislation. We are not therefore dealing with matters that are likely to be embodied in a manifesto or the Government's programme for the Session.
Secondly—this is the prospective reason—the proposed method of scrutiny that I have outlined gives greater legitimacy to the use of the power. If a sifting committee has recommended that an instrument be annulled or has passed a conditional amendment that the Government have not heeded, then the House will expect a full justification from the Government. If that is not forthcoming, I think that the House would have perfectly valid grounds for rejecting the instrument. Of course, if the system is working well, the House should not need to use the power, but I think that the power needs to be there.
These are important qualifications. However, the essential point for the purpose of today's debate is that the Royal Commission has endorsed the view of
830
previous bodies that action is needed to strengthen Parliament in its scrutiny of delegated legislation. The key word here is Parliament. We are not discussing something that is part and parcel of the debate about reform of the upper House. We are discussing a problem that faces Parliament. Both Houses should act, and should do so as a matter of urgency.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, for introducing this debate on an important subject which the events of 22nd February have made even more important than they were before. When, as a novice, I joined the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, I learnt much from the experience and wisdom of the noble Lord.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that, useful though this debate has been, it is no substitute for a full debate on the role of the interim House. That, I believe, is a debate that we should have and I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not in her place today to listen to our debate. I hope that she will take the opportunity of reading the report in Hansard very carefully.
The power of your Lordships' House to reject secondary legislation emerged like a tiger from its lair on 18th June 1968 when this House narrowly rejected the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order. That vote was seen to create a constitutional crisis. It brought to an end the cross-party discussions on the reform of your Lordships' House that were proceeding at the time. The government announced their intention to introduce legislation to reduce the powers of your Lordships' House—an intention which somehow they never got around to implementing. The order, in a slightly varied form, was relaid and approved by your Lordships' House a month later, on 18th July. The tiger returned to its lair, where it snarled from time to time.
The procedural device of a non-fatal amendment was invented. The extremely useful Library Notes on this subject tell us that a non-fatal amendment was passed eight times between 1977 and 1998. During that period there were also some direct challenges to orders, but none of them was successful.
On 20th October 1994, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—whom I am very glad to see has once again participated in the debate today—persuaded your Lordships' House that there was no convention which prevented it from exercising a power to reject secondary legislation. That, of course, has always been the view of these Benches.
On 22nd February his year, the tiger emerged from its lair for a second time and savaged the London election rules because they did not provide for a freepost. This time there was no constitutional crisis. The Government negotiated on the subject and returned with an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to allow a freepost for the mayoral election. On this occasion, your Lordships' House was acting not to protect, as in 1968, a white minority

831
government in S Duthem Rhodesia, but to protect the democratic rights of the electors of London. That forms the background to today's debate.
I believe that fie right to reject secondary legislation is a very powerful weapon in the hands of your Lordships' House. It is so powerful that it must be exercised with very great care and restraint. I shall not try to suggest any specific rules for this; it would take far too long in our debate this afternoon and others could do it much better than I. However, the power should not be used, in particular, to block the implementation of an Act if the principles being implemented were fully debated in Parliament during the passage of that Act.
For example, under the Access to Justice Act 1999, there were many aspects of the funding code for the Community Legal Service to which we on these Benches strongly objected. But those issues had been fully debated during the passage of the Bill and it would not have been right to challenge the order for approval of the funding code. When the order came forward, I appeared in this House merely to criticise it, but not to make any attempt to revoke it.
However, if the circumstances justify the exercise of a power to reject secondary legislation, then I believe that it is the right and duty of your Lordships' House to exercise that power. The attempt to lay down rules for the mayoral election without a freepost was plainly such a case.
The trouble with the proposals in Chapter 7 of the report of the Royal Commission is that it entirely destroys this vital power of your Lordships' House. Under Recommendations 41 and 42 of the report, any order rejected by your Lordships' House can nevertheless take effect if confirmed in the other place within three months. I emphasise the word "within", rather than at the end of three months. The effect of this would have been that when your Lordships' House threw out the London election rules, those rules would have been voted on again within a matter of a few days in another place. They would have taken effect without any amendment and there would have been no freepost.
I have to say that when I first read Chapter 7, I assumed that these proposals were intended to work the other way around. I thought that they meant that the other place could force an order through after a delay of three months, and I believe that, judging from his speech, that is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, also thought. I then re-read the chapter and discovered that I had misunderstood what was said in the report; namely, that three months was the end of the time within which the other place could confirm the original order, not the start of that time. Let me refer to Recommendation 41, which states:
"Where the second chamber votes against a draft instrument, the draft should nevertheless be deemed to be approved if the House of Commons subsequently gives (or, as the case may be, reaffirms) its approval within three months".
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord is referring to the right recommendation when he comments on Recommendation 41 rather than Recommendation 42. There is a distinction between draft secondary legislation and what I take to be full secondary legislation.
Lord Goodhart: No, my Lords. Recommendation 41 refers to the affirmative resolution procedure; Recommendation 42 refers to the negative procedure. Recommendation 42 is less clear. It states:
"the annulment should not take effect for three months and could be overridden by a resolution of the House of Commons".
But I take it that that annulment is intended to operate only within that three month period. I am sorry to have to say this in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, but I find that particular proposal both extraordinary and indefensible.
There is a case for reducing power over statutory instruments from absolute veto to power to delay for a period of, say, one year, in line with our powers over primary legislation. However, there are arguments the other way for saying that, if the Government want to override the veto of your Lordships' House, they should do so by primary legislation. I can see no arguments for the proposal as it stands in Chapter 7.
There are a number of good things in that chapter. I agree with Recommendation 35, that there should be, as many noble Lords have said, more parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation and that your Lordships' House should make a strong contribution to that scrutiny. I agree with Recommendation 36, that particularly significant statutory instruments should be published in draft for consultation before being laid before Parliament. To a considerable extent that is already happening, especially where statutory instruments are intended to implement new primary legislation and are published for consultation while that legislation is passing through Parliament. I agree with Recommendations 37 and 38, for a sifting mechanism to look at the significance of statutory instruments and to draw attention to those which merit debate.
I regret the report's conclusion that there is no case for making it possible to amend statutory instruments once they are laid before Parliament. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that there should be no general power to allow amendment of statutory instruments—that would defeat the purpose of getting them through Parliament relatively quickly and efficiently—but there is much to be said for the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, to permit conditional amendments to statutory instruments in order that your Lordships' House could reject the statutory instrument but explain the terms on which it would consent to it if re-laid.
Going beyond that, in the relatively short time that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, I have become increasingly convinced that there is a need for a kind of legislation which is intermediate between the affirmative resolution procedure and primary legislation. That would perhaps be similar to the

833
super-affirmative statutory instrument discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, in his constructive and thoughtful speech.
The affirmative resolution procedure we now have excludes amendments and usually means no more than 20 minutes of debate in the dinner hour or at the end of the day's business. Primary legislation, by contrast, involves the whole panoply of Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading—and the allocation of the Committee stage to the Moses Room in some cases does little to shorten the procedure. The Jellicoe procedure appears to have been totally abandoned. An intermediate procedure would be appropriate both for particularly important statutory instruments and for minor and uncontroversial Bills, such as many of the Law Commission Bills.
As I have made clear, I disagree strongly with Recommendations 41 and 42. The report was published before your Lordships' House rejected the London election rules. The report assumes in paragraph 7.11 that there was a convention that your Lordships' House did not reject statutory instruments. Maybe now the authors of the report would say something different. Be that as it may, we on these Benches will fight as strongly as we can to preserve the unfettered right of your Lordships' House to reject secondary legislation.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have had a very useful and interesting debate on the immensely important issue of secondary legislation. As all noble Lords who have spoken have said, we are deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree for introducing it.
I have reminded the House on a number of occasions that, although it is a long time ago, I was one of the founder members of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, as it was initially called. After a very short membership, I was whisked off to the Government. I then became a gamekeeper after being a poacher—or perhaps it was the other way round; I am not sure. I certainly noticed the reminder of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the Child Support Agency and the secondary legislation that surrounded it. Clearly my spell on the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee did not do me as much good as it should have.
The truth is that all governments tend to produce skeleton Bills, or parts of Bills, which allow Ministers—or, more truthfully, civil servants—to draw up the rules later. Indeed, it should be not only the opposition parties and government Back-Benchers but Ministers themselves who should want to reduce what is, in reality, legislation by officials. Parliament in theory sets out the principles, but it is in government departments that the rule books are written—rule books which can close shops, slaughterhouses and schools; which can pile costs and bureaucracy on business; and which can put jobs at risk in areas such as, if I may take a random example, the pig industry.
834
There is cross-party agreement that this development needs to be checked. Over time, there have of course been steps taken to deal with affirmative, negative and general instruments. Parliament has tried to build up its defences against the abuse of secondary power. We have had the Commons Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and now we have in your Lordships' House the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. These institutions are useful. In particular, your Lordships' Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee does an outstanding job in drawing attention to attempts by government to push secondary powers too far and to evade scrutiny on the face of legislation.
All governments have so far heeded notes of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. There was a recent unwise attempt by the noble Lord. Lord Bassam of Brighton, to tough it out on proceedings at general elections, but wisdom overtook the Government and the noble Lord brought forward amendments to agree with the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That is quite right. At the risk of incurring, perhaps not the wrath of but a row from the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I venture to suggest that advice from this committee is on the way to becoming a convention of the way we deal with legislation. We in this House and in the other place should expect obedience from all governments to the recommendations of the committee.
Despite these checks, problems abound. If I can remind the House, the Pollution Control Act was, in its original form, the worst example of a skeleton Bill ever to come to the House. Now we have a growing swathe of late amendments to big Bills, some of which contain enabling powers. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee commented on this in its 10th report. In regard to the government amendments at the Committee stage of the Financial Services Bill, it stated:
"the increasing speed with which the Committee is being asked to work … may on occasion mean that the Committee's report on amendments is published after the House has considered the amendments".
Clearly that is not a satisfactory position, especially if the amendments contain Henry VIII type secondary powers.
We are increasingly under pressure of time and weight of legislation. There is a weakness in the other place in the scrutiny of legislation. Your Lordships need only read dare I say it—the Committee stages of Bills before they come here. They may sometimes occasion a laugh but they do not occasion much wisdom. There is also the sheer weight of legislation. The 1997–98 Session was the longest in history. In this Session we have a huge programme of Bills—the fullest programme that many can remember. And we have a huge number of late amendments: 1,000 to the GLA Bill; 500 to the Local Government Bill; and some 600, I understand, to the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Those are all problems which beset this

835
Government as they beset to an extent the last government. We have to try to find a way to deal with them, and in particular secondary legislation.
Running through the debate has been reference to the report of the Royal Commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, whom I am pleased to see in his place. Most noble Lords made reference to Chapter 7 of the report on secondary legislation. I agree with many of the recommendations in that chapter. I agree with noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who said that we could move ahead now with some of the recommendations. The sifting committee proposal in Recommendations 37 and 38 has met with approval around the House and could be introduced. I have some reservations. I shall come to my principal reservation on Chapter 7 later.
We all agree that secondary legislation is not open to sufficient scrutiny. We need to discuss it perhaps more often. Do we, or do we not, need to be able to amend it? We need to be able if we wish, and on rare occasions, to reject it.
Better accountability not only involves your Lordships and Members of the other place having a close look at secondary legislation but also must involve us lining with outside bodies and organisations which will be affected by the detail of it. My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon spoke about that issue.
I was surprised that your Lordships dwelt largely on secondary legislation brought in after—sometimes a long time after—the primary legislation on which it was based. At this stage, perhaps I may throw into the pot consideration of what we do about the powers in the primary legislation as it goes through your Lordships' House. I have a few suggestions. Where important regulations are to be brought in under a Bill, draft regulations should be available to the House before the Committee stage. In a properly planned world that should be possible. Ministers should give as much attention to the small print as to the soundbites of law making. It is the small print that makes or breaks businesses and jobs.
If draft regulations are not available, either House should be increasingly reluctant to proceed to Committee stage or should declare its right to reject outright late presented regulations. Where draft regulations are presented after Committee or secondary powers added into a Bill after Committee, that part of the Bill should normally be recommitted so that we can have a Committee-type discussion and not a Report-type, or, even worse, a Third Reading-type, of discussion.
In some circumstances it might be sensible to lay the draft regulations as amending schedules to the Bill. Your Lordships may remember that for a variety of reasons I suggested this to the Government in the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill in the summer of 1997. Indeed, the Government took that on board. Therefore while the Bill was still going through as primary legislation, we were able to discuss the detail
836
of the secondary legislation which dictated how the referendums would work and were of great importance and interest.
Your Lordships' House must retain the power to reject regulations. I shall come to that in a moment. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway pointed out, we could continue to use non-fatal Motions to point to where regulations need amendment, but your Lordships will recall that the Government ignored that procedure on the massive vote on beef-on-the-bone regulations. I do not say this as a condemnation of this Government, but non-fatal resolutions do not stake much terror into the heart of government of any party.
Both Houses, possibly in the context of the Joint Committee we should like to see put forward under stage two, should look at ways to enable amendment of secondary legislation. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that it might be difficult to define a way forward for amending secondary legislation. It would need a lot of time and staff, and perhaps work off the Floor of the House, with evidence from parties to be affected, and complex mechanisms for reaching agreement between the two Houses. I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who suggested that we should perhaps look at the Welsh Assembly for an example of how to do that; and I shall certainly do that.
As regards the recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission that if we reject secondary legislation the House of Commons can in two or three days' time simply agree with it again and that is it, I believe that that would be totally unsatisfactory. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that if that power had been in place when your Lordships decided to reject the London elections measure, two days later the House of Commons would simply have rubber-stamped the government position and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and myself would never have had meetings with the Government Chief Whip and his two colleagues and negotiated what I think was a sensible agreement and a way out. We were fortunate then because the Representation of the People Bill was there as a vehicle. I accept that. But I was not blind to the fact that there was a vehicle available. Nor, indeed, was the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
We have to be extremely careful about going down the road my noble friend Lord Wakeham suggests in these two recommendations. I think that government of any party would not be too unhappy about that recommendation. That is why I believe that we should retain our right to reject secondary legislation, perhaps doing so in a way which makes clear why we are rejecting it and what we should like to see changed; and the Government can then negotiate and come back with an amended regulation which your Lordships would then pass. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said after the London orders debate, I think that your Lordships should use that power—as my party would—very sparingly indeed.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in a number of debates. However, I want to

837
close with the noble and learned Lord's words on Third Reading of the Representation of the People Bill on 6th March 2000. At col. 817 of the Official Report the noble and learned Lord said;
"I trust that henceforth there will be no question but that your Lordships have power to examine, scrutinise and challenge secondary legislation".
That is certainly the view of these Benches.
4.57 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I join with every speaker in the debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, for raising the matter and making such an excellent speech. As one noble Lord said, it set the tone. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. It has been a useful and illuminating debate in getting Members of this House to express views on the issue of how secondary legislation should be dealt with.
A range of suggestions was made. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, said, "Let's get on with the Royal Commission's proposals and propose a way to amend secondary legislation". My noble friend Lord Peston said, "We cannot amend, but let us get on with some proposals in relation to amendment". The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, gave effectively five suggestions some of which are in the commission's report and some are not. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, directed us to Wales and said, "See what the National Assembly for Wales has done". The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, "Ignoring the fact that the House of Commons would have to be involved in some way, let us just get on with it ourselves. Let us think of a way of procuring delay". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, "Don't do anything. Let us just rely upon our powers to reject provisions of secondary legislation".
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, wrests credit away from the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, for the proposal for three months' delay. He says that this is his idea and that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He says, "Let's get on with it" but equally says that we should cherry pick. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, rightly says that we should act in co-operation with the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rejects some of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, but accepts others. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, supports the idea of amendment. I simply go through that to indicate that there is plainly no consensus at present as to how one should deal with the issue—
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. He must have heard a different debate from the one to which I have been listening. I was astonished by the high degree of consensus among noble Lords. I hesitate to ignore my noble and learned friend for the moment, but if we
838
were asked to sit down together I believe that we would come up with a solution to the whole set of problems. I have no doubt that there was considerable consensus.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe there was a consensus that something should be done but not as to what that should be. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for example, said, "Don't do anything; just rely on your power to reject". Other noble Lords said, "We have to get rid of our power to reject and delay". Other noble Lords said that we should delay in different ways. Yet other noble Lords, of whom the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, is the best example, said, "Take a whole new model"; namely, the National Assembly of Wales. To say that there is a consensus on the way forward seems to me, with respect, optimistic. What was being said was simply that there should be a way forward.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may offer a suggestion. Can the Minister identify any noble Lord who argued against changing the process and introducing a sifting committee?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that we should simply rely upon our power to reject. The approach of the Government to the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is that we would wish to hear detailed comments on its proposals. This debate has been a useful way of dealing with and receiving such comments, though I accept that it will not be the only way.
In my remarks, perhaps I may not address the particular proposals made by the House—this is a useful listening debate from our point of view—but address the way forward in the mean time. That raises the question of the current position in the present interim House. The Government believe that there is, and should be, a convention that this House does not reject secondary legislation. I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention two definitions of a constitutional convention which I believe are relevant. The first is found in Marshall and Moodie, Some Problems of the Constitution, which states:
"Conventions are rules of constitutional behaviour which are considered to be binding by and upon those who operate the constitution, but which are not enforced by the law courts".
In Dicey's Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, he stated:
"The general rule that the House of Lords must in matters of legislation ultimately give way to the House of Commons is one of the best-established maxims of modern constitutional ethics".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way in a time-limited debate. A great many years have passed—in fact, a century— since Dicey wrote that. How can the Minister possibly stand up now and say that there is no convention when that was expressly asserted in 1994 and expressly acted on within this very year?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall come to that, if I may. I shall deal with the 1994 position and the February 2000 position. As has been agreed in the course of the debate, the House has rejected secondary legislation only twice since the war: on Rhodesian sanctions and on arrangements for the London mayoral elections earlier last month.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord again. It is true that only twice have the votes been carried to a negative Division. But during the sixties and seventies, think the noble and learned Lord will agree that both parties repeatedly voted against secondary legislation without necessarily carrying it in the Division Lobby.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that from time to time people voted against secondary legislation. But, apart from the two occasions to which I have referred, those were the only occasions when secondary legislation was defeated by a fatal motion. The fact that between 1945 and the year 2000 Members of this House voted in a way inconsistent with the Salisbury/Addington convention does not mean that there was not a Salisbury/Addington convention which prevailed, and still prevails, in this House.
As your Lordships know, when secondary legislation is actually defeated by this House, the other place cannot cverrule your Lordships because the concurrence of both Houses is required. Perhaps I may deal with the 1994 debate initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. There was no vote taken. As the then Leader of the House—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, again I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord. There was no vote taken because the resolution was carried nem. con.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is absolutely right. What was the basis on which it was carried? Perhaps we may refer to the words of the then Leader of the House, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. When the issue was debated, he said that this sat very ill with your Lordships' role as a revising chamber— that is, to defeat secondary legislation—whose power should be one of asking the other place to think again, not to defy it.
As he put it,
"It is clear that the exercise of this crude power could result in stalemate between the two Houses with little scope for resolution"—[Official Report, 20/10/94; col. 361.]
It is clear that when the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, indicated that the Conservative Party would not vote against the resolution proposed, everybody accented that the power was there to vote against secondary legislation—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not think that even the noble and learned Lord can assert that the reason the vote was not carried by the Conservative Party was because the resolution was understood to mean precisely the opposite of what it said.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that this is a timed debate. I should like the Minister to have time to reply.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am being too provocative; I apologise. The reason I assert that that was why the Conservative Party, or indeed anybody, did not vote against the resolution is because that is the true meaning of what the noble Lord said. Nobody disputes that the power exists to vote against secondary legislation, just as nobody disputes that the power exists to vote against legislation in breach of the Salisbury Convention. The question is not: is the power there to vote against it? The question is: is there a convention that says constitutionally we should not do it?
I do not deny that, procedurally, as was resolved in the 1994 debate, noble Lords have the power to defeat secondary legislation; but I say that that is no different from their power to defeat legislation in breach of the Salisbury Convention.
Much secondary legislation is now very important as a means of delivering government policies. Sometimes, of course, it is simply detail or transitional but on other occasions it is crucial to the smooth process of government that secondary legislation should be used.
I think it unlikely that matters would ever come to the point that rejection would occur on small matters of detail. The fact that the power has been used or even invoked so rarely points to that. Therefore, almost by definition, the question of defeat of a statutory instrument will arise only when it deals with an important matter of policy. The question, therefore, is: should the House of Lords be able to prevent the elected government from doing things they wish to do, and which the elected Commons agrees they should do as a matter of important policy, where that policy requires secondary legislation for its implementation?
The question therefore is: should the House of Lords be able to prevent, for example, the fixing of a minimum wage at the level that the Commons want? Or should it be able to prevent the mayoral elections from going ahead altogether? When I say "prevent", I mean prevent altogether. That is the power that it is said exists in this House in relation to secondary legislation; in effect, a power to override the elected other place in relation to matters of high policy. If one looks at the history of this issue, the matter never arises in relation to detail. That is usually dealt with by agreement. The answer to the question must be and is, "No". The unelected Chamber should not be able to prevent the elected Government and Chamber from doing, as a matter of principle, what the other place decided to do.
This unelected Chamber is not the equal of the elected Chamber. Noble Lords opposite are rather given to claiming that, now that the House is more legitimate than it previously was, it has somehow acquired that right. That is nonsense. This House is indeed more legitimate than it was because all of its Members have in one way or another earned their

841
place. But in democratic terms it is still not as legitimate as the other place. Therefore, it is not right that it should exercise a power which actually sets aside and makes of no effect the wishes of the other place on important issues of policy, which decision cannot be reversed by the other place. This Chamber is a scrutinising Chamber. That is accepted. It is not one where important matters of principle are to be resolved as a matter of finality.
The prime power of this Chamber is to make the Government think again. This it already has the means to do, even on secondary legislation, by various devices drawing attention to concerns about individual instruments which fall short of outright rejection. For example, noble Lords may agree a Motion setting out the amendments they would ideally like to see made to an order. Noble Lords with more experience than I will know all of the non-fatal means by which this House developed mechanisms to draw to the attention of the executive or the other place what they would like to see in secondary legislation.
It is sometimes suggested that if the Government attach so much importance to something with which they cannot contemplate not proceeding, they ought to deal with it by way of primary legislation, thus leaving open the possibility of using the Parliament Acts to overrule your Lordships' House. That is a mistaken view on both constitutional and practical grounds. Everyone accepts that there are matters which are entirely properly dealt with by secondary legislation. Secondary legislation does not emerge from the ether at the whim of the Government. In every case where it is used, it is under powers which have been conferred in primary legislation.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, every?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, yes: every.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am following the argument of the noble and learned Lord, but does he agree that his argument would be on firmer ground if, during the passage of the primary legislation, the secondary legislation were available, thus enabling both Houses to see what the Government intended?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, how can it be available in every case? What happens when the minimum wage is changed? That is the sort of situation we are talking about.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we could be talking about the first time, when we could at least see it before we pass the primary legislation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, sometimes it is available. The noble Lord gave examples. Sometimes, as I indicated—and frequently—it is a power given to a government on an ongoing basis which it is intended should be changed and, therefore, cannot always be available at first instance.
842
Parliament has agreed that secondary legislation is appropriate in those cases where it has given Parliament the power to pass secondary legislation. We in this House now have a highly-respected committee which advises on the question of whether the powers proposed are indeed appropriate. Governments of both parties take the recommendations of that committee, in my view rightly, extremely seriously.
On the practicalities, one of the main reasons for preferring secondary legislation is, as I have said, where the provisions are transitional; where they apply only in specified circumstances, which are themselves time-limited; where they are urgent: where they are needed to enable us to fulfil international obligations; or where they need to be flexible to respond to changing situations. Doing any of those things by primary legislation so that the Parliament Acts are available, risks unacceptable delay, especially if the Parliament Act had to be invoked. It clogs up the parliamentary process. Logically, if primary legislation is required on the first occasion that the issue arises, why would this House agree that in future secondary legislation would be adequate?
The Chairman of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon—I am glad to see him in his place—who took part in this debate, fully accepts that the proper use of secondary legislation is essential to the proper workings of Parliament and government. Once we accept that that is the proposition, we end up in this strange situation which it appears that certain noble Lords are arguing for; that is, that this House has the power to veto certain acts of the elected government.
I venture to suggest that even the way in which the power has been used since the war does not indicate a desire to reject, but only to delay. In the case of the Rhodesian sanctions order, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that,
"if the Government decided, in spite of the advice which we had given them, to re-lay the Order, we should be giving the Commons another opportunity to debate it in the light of what has been said in this House … I have always thought that this was the proper function of a Second Chamber".—[Official Report, 18/6/68; col. 576.]
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was not asserting, even in relation to the Rhodesian sanctions order, a right to veto, which is the right being asserted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Indeed, when the Government did relay the order, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned, your Lordships' House duly approved it. At the time, given the wider consequences of that first action, the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in the second debate that,
"to flout the House of Commons, to overrule the elected Chamber, would undoubtedly be … one of the greatest mistakes this House has made for a long time".—[Official Report, 17/6/68; col. 357.]
seemed prophetic. Did the Rhodesian sanctions order, in those circumstances, indicate that the House had a power to veto? In my view, clearly not. In my view, equally, it was not taken by this House as indicating that it had such a power—see the fact that this House

843
then developed non-fatal ways of dealing with the issue; see the fact that until last month it never sought to assert that power; see also the conclusions of the Wakeham Royal Commission which give what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, described as a "masterful analysis" of the existing position.
Paragraph 7 11 of the report stated:
"Although in 1994 the House of Lords (on a motion from Lord Simon of Glaisdale) asserted its 'unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation', in practice there has (so far) been no serious challenge since 1968 to the convention that the House of Lords does not reject Statutory Instruments".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord read the first three lines of paragraph 7.39, which deals with this issue.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall come to that. Paragraph 7.31 says:
"The powers of the present House of Lords in respect of Statutory Instruments are more absolute than those it has in respect of primary legislation. On the other hand, as we noted … there has since 1968 been no serious challenge to the convention that the House of Lords does not reject Statutory Instruments. Its influence over secondary legislation is therefore paradoxically less than its influence over primary legislation".
Paragraph 7.39 says:
"We did consider the option of retaining the second chamber's present absolute veto over Statutory Instruments, particularly in relation to delegated powers".
It continues further down,
"The absolute nature of the House of Lords powers in relation to secondary legislation is more apparent than real".
So an objective consideration of the matter by the Wakeham Commission (if I may call it that), concluded that in reality there was no such veto. That is exactly consistent with the constitutional position of this House.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, if the Minister is pressing, as he is passionately, that this power should not veto secondary legislation, is he not then making a devastatingly supportive case that there must be a delaying power or this House cannot properly fulfil its duty at all?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, at the moment I am discussing the present position. If we take 1968 as the starting point, this House has operated for the past 32 years on the basis that it has no power to reject secondary legislation. It has been perfectly satisfied with its non-fatal powers. What happens next requires consideration of the kind of ideas that we have discussed this afternoon. I am concerned to identify the present position.
What about the events of 22nd February 2000? In my respectful submission the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, indicated the extraordinarily flawed nature of his argument in support of what happened on that occasion when he indicated that there was no convention of tae kind we have discussed. He said that if the matter had been debated or considered in the course of the primary legislation it would be wrong to
844
challenge the secondary legislation. He referred to the Access to Justice Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, knows, the Greater London Authority Act established the mayor and the need for an election in that regard. Unlike in the cases of the then Scotland and Wales Bills—if I may call them that in shorthand—there was no suggestion or amendment proposed by anyone that there should be a freepost arrangement. No one thought it right to raise that matter at the appropriate time.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, when I have finished this sequence of remarks the noble Lord can demonstrate where I am wrong. The matter I was discussing was never debated at the appropriate tame. As with the Rhodesian sanctions, it is perfectly possible that this House acted in breach of the existing constitutional convention.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the problem with the then Greater London Authority Bill was that the failure to include anything in the nature of a free mailshot was simply overlooked. I think that I speak for my noble friends when I say that they assumed that there were powers to create a mailshot. The legislation is extremely complex; there are cross-references to the Representation of the People Act 1983. I believe that a search has produced one reference to a mailshot in the Committee stage in the other place which certainly did not suggest that there would not be one. At the time no one realised that this problem would occur.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I say, the measure was included in the Scotland and Wales Acts. In a sense the noble Lord is saying that the Opposition, having failed to raise the matter at the right time, then decided to raise it at the wrong time; that is, when the secondary legislation went through. That may well be an indication of an exceptional circumstance. However, that mistake by the Opposition does not seem to me to justify the breaking of what—if one looks objectively at the history of this matter, as the Wakeham Commission did—was plainly a constitutional convention.
The Government believe that the fact that the process of reform of your Lordships' House has begun does not change the relationship between the two Houses. This House is still untouched by the electorate at large, while the other derives its whole existence from it. The other House must therefore prevail on issues such as this. It is wrong for this House, however strongly it feels, to reject an order which the elected Chamber is content to approve.
I turn briefly to the proposal in the Royal Commission report for a power of delay. As I said earlier, I can see that this is an issue whose case is well worth arguing. Indeed, to some extent I see the force of what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said. However, we cannot decide it now. That is obvious from the wide range of views that have been expressed.

845
When the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, spoke in our debate on the Royal Commission report on 7th March he counselled against what he described as "cherry picking". The Royal Commission set out a blueprint for what it thought the functions of the second Chamber should be in the future. It then proposed a method of composition which it thought would best fit the second Chamber to fulfil those functions. The two—composition and functions—went together. Proposed functions which were suitable for the fully reformed House were not necessarily to be treated as suitable for the present transitional House. That is not to say that they are definitely unsuitable. One of the advantages of debates such as today's is that it enables us to explore precisely that kind of question.
However, where the Royal Commission thought that particular recommendations could with advantage be adopted in advance of full reform, it said so. The recommendations in relation to secondary legislation were not in that list for one very good reason; namely, that at least some of the changes to the treatment of secondary legislation which the Royal Commission recommended would require legislation, including many of those which are the subject of this debate.
I should remind the House that the proposal to allow this House to delay secondary legislation is part of a package of measures recommended by the Royal Commission. As many noble Lords have said, they include the establishment of a "sifting committee" to consider the best treatment of individual statutory instruments, particularly, but not exclusively, when the vires for the instrument have got out of step with the contemporary importance of the measures covered by it. They also include a requirement that no statutory instrument should be debated until the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported, and an extension from 40 to 60 days in the period of time during which a statutory instrument can be prayed against has been made. As many noble Lords have pointed out, both these recommendations were originally made by the Procedure Committee in another place. They have recently been endorsed by a fresh report from that same committee.
That brings me to one of the key reasons—which was specifically identified by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth—for not considering in isolation the proposals in the Royal Commission's report in the chapter relating to secondary legislation. They affect both Houses of Parliament equally. The Royal Commission report stated that its proposals were aimed at,
"enabling the two Houses to work together in scrutinising Statutory Instruments more effectively".
I believe that that is an important factor which we should continue to bear in mind. It is particularly relevant in this case because the power of delay proposed by the Royal Commission is, of course, a power to send a statutory instrument back to the Commons. They will have to develop procedures to deal with such an arrangement. It is not just a request for a Minister to think again; it is a request for the
846
other place to think again. Therefore, before we in this House decide that this is a desirable development, we ought to be certain that it is also acceptable to the other place. It would be a pity if a proposal aimed at increasing the ability of the two Houses to work together became instead a bone of contention between them.
As I said at the outset, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate as it has given us an opportunity to air many of the important issues raised by the Royal Commission and other associated matters.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I, too, am exceedingly grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House who have participated in what has been a most useful and constructive debate. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for listening to the whole of the debate. I am relieved that, although he did not say "yes", he did not quite say "no" either. Therefore I believe that we can proceed on the basis of the clear message that has emerged from the debate; namely, "get on with it now". The time is ripe to sharpen up parliamentary procedures for the scrutiny of delegated legislation. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Museums and Galleries: VAT
5.27 p.m.
Lord Freyberg Lord Freyberg rose to call attention to the case for extending Section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to include national museums and galleries which are the responsibility of central Government; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this afternoon's debate on the case for extending Section 33 of the VAT Act 1994 to include national museums and galleries. This is an exciting and hugely helpful proposal for simplifying a long-standing museum predicament. It is also of vital importance if we are to stop the financially damaging division between national museums that charge admission, and those that do not.
In the arts debate a fortnight ago, initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I drew attention to the National Art Collections Fund's ingenious and imaginative proposal to permit the national museums to reclaim VAT on non-business activities without having to charge for entry, thereby putting non-charging museums on the same footing as charging museums and most local authority museums.
A number of speakers drew attention to the Government's pledge of free admission to national museums. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the subject as "well-worn". I should like to assure him that free admission, important though it is, is not the focus of this debate. Instead I shall concentrate on the damage caused by the present VAT system to all our

847
national museums and their ability to deliver their core objectives. It is essential that the VAT anomaly is sorted out. I urge the Minister to do everything he can to resolve it. It will not go away and, until it is properly addressed, schemes for increased access to museums, however, imaginative, will always be limited.
Put at its simplest, charging museums can recover VAT, free museums cannot. By allowing the two systems to co-exist, the Government are favouring charging museums and penalising non-charging ones. That not only goes against their avowed desire to achieve universal free admission; it actually offers financial inducements for museums to introduce entry charges. I hope that that is not the Government's intention, and, if it is not, can they please get to grips with the current anomaly?
The VAT nightmare unites charging and non-charging museums alike. What possible advantage is there in forcing museums to commit enormous amounts of time and energy devising methods of VAT recovery rather than focusing on their core activities? National museums have to devote considerable resources to consultancy fees, employing experts to devise schemes specifically to recover VAT because the sums involved make such a difference to them. Sound financial management, yes, but expensive tax consultants? Surely we would much rather they concentrated on their public service priorities such as access, education and outreach.
There is, however, one potential solution to which the Government should give serious consideration. Last summer, at the suggestion of the DCMS, the National Art Collections Fund teamed up the Charity Tax Reform Group to look at possible answers to the VAT problem. They came up with a satisfyingly simple scheme which in its final form, and after proper consultation with the national museums, tax specialists and the European Commission was submitted to the DCMS in January this year. What it proposed was a at, by adding them to Section 33 of the VAT Act 1994, all the national museums could recover the VAT they incurred, regardless of whether or not they charge admission.
The concession already applies to a number of government-funded bodies such as the BBC and local authorities—and thus to some museums funded by local authorities. At a stroke, this proposal would remove the anomaly between charging and non-charging museums and it would also end the circular process whereby government grants are used to pay VAT back to that same government, but with considerable additional administrative costs.
There are several reasons why the national museums and galleries should be added to Section 33. For one thing, they are funded by central government—in other words, out of taxpayers' money—and all hold and maintain national assets on our behalf. For another, their funding is closely tied to the delivery of public service objectives, including significant public access to their collections. The national museums are exactly what their name suggests: a huge resource for the entire nation. The majority may be located in the
848
South East, for which there are historical reasons—and here they are visited by and accessible to millions of Britons from around the country. In addition, they are repositories for world-class scholarship, education, inspiration and excellence of all kinds. It is crucial for all of us that this excellence is maintained, along with the buildings that house them.
Why are we penalising our national institutions when many of our local museums are covered by Section 33? Should not the nationals be able to serve the public unhampered by VAT considerations? Customs are now apparently arguing that it is the policy that Section 33 status can be conferred only on bodies that have the right to precept on local taxation. This may be a policy developed by Customs, but -it is not the one based on the law. There are already a number of bodies within Section 33 that do not have the right to precept on local taxation. Is Customs saying that these bodies should not be included in Section 33? If not, the policy is clearly inconsistent and discriminatory. It seems ridiculous that a policy that has been developed by Customs has the effect of preventing the Government from fulfilling one of their key policy aims. It is clearly within the Government's power to re-examine the logic of their own guidelines. That this is within their rights so far as the European Commission is concerned has been confirmed at the highest level by Pierre Guieu, who was a senior official and drafted the Sixth VAT Directive. He states that,
"it is entirely a matter for the UK Government to develop a mechanism to prevent these organisations from having to pay VAT's.
That leads me to my next point. If we do not adopt a solution such as this, there is a real danger that the Government's policy of free entry for children and pensioners will unravel. While welcoming today's statement on free admission for pensioners. I understand that Customs and Excise will review whether museums can be regarded as "businesses" if more than half of their visitors get in free. That may well happen—visitor numbers have increased by an average of 18 per cent in the last year, since children have been allowed in free. I share the Government's desire to see increased visitor numbers at national museums. But what a nonsense it would be if we have a situation whereby "too many" free visitors results in museums having, as it were, to "compensate" Customs and Excise.
I should be grateful if the Minister could assure us that that is not going to happen—although, even if he can, sadly, that will offer reassurance only in the short-term. As we all know, it is well within the remit of Customs and Excise to review this, and any such informal arrangement, as and when it chooses in the future.
Previous attempts to address the VAT problem have been thwarted by claims that the Government are powerless to act because of contrary European legislation. The Government will be cheered to learn that that is not so. Indeed, no less a person than the head of the European Commission's taxation unit has stated that Section 33 of UK VAT law does not conflict with the European common VAT system.

849
A comparison with other EU countries reveals that the Commission tolerates a variety of regimes. There is not a universal application of VAT, in so far as public sector bodies including museums and galleries are concerned, but an ad hoc situation where different member states apply their own systems while conforming to the provisions of the Sixth VAT Directive.
By restricting the amendment to national museums and galleries only, the cost (in terms of lost revenue to the Treasury) can be identified and contained. Such a scheme would be simple to achieve, as the Treasury has the power to add to the list of bodies in Section 33 by means of an Order in Council and primary legislation would therefore not be required. The exact cost of amending Section 33 is difficult to estimate, given that a museum's capital works vary from year to year. However, to give noble Lords some idea, if we take the British Museum, the National Gallery, the Tate and the National Portrait Gallery, they estimate that the total annual amount of VAT they would be able to reclaim would average £3.1 million. That is money that could go to enhance their public services, rather than to Customs and Excise.
It would, of course, be necessary to ring-fence entry to Section 33 with robust qualifying criteria. The NACF, in consultation with the DCMS, has suggested 10 conditions that would have to be met, including: that the institution should be a national museum or gallery; should be subject to central government financial memoranda; that the majority of its trustees should be appointed by central government; and that there should be significant public access. In such a way, repercussive claims could be countered.
The Government set aside £30 million to help museums and galleries achieve free access for all to the collections by April 2001. How much of that is left? Will the Minister tell the House whether enough remains to meet the relatively small cost of this proposal?
What is becoming increasingly clear is that solving the VAT problem is not a matter for the DCMS alone. It can be resolved only if Customs and Excise and the Treasury are prepared to get together, examine the fine detail and come up with a logical, fair and joined-up approach. Different arms of government are failing to work together, to the detriment of museums and their public. I beg the Minister to use his considerable powers of persuasion and good sense to get his two departments together and devise a satisfactory solution. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for initiating this debate. I congratulate him on his very thorough speech and the strong case that he makes for helping the free museums in this way. After all, these are some of the greatest museums in the country. Free museums must pay non-recoverable VAT on their associated expenditure and running costs, and that taxation can be quite
850
substantial. This is an anomalous position vis-à-vis the so-called business category museums which make entry charges. There is also a grey area relating to those museums and galleries which offer free entry to children, students and pensioners but charge other visitors.
HM Customs and Excise has accepted that the admission of some visitors free of charge does not constitute a separate non-business activity to make those museums liable for VAT. However, the position is uncertain. I understand that Customs has indicated that it may challenge the tribunal's ruling in the case of the Imperial War Museum if some visitors, such as children and old age pensioners, are allowed in free. It seems that any compromise solution, such as the introduction of certain free periods for everyone, may also be challenged.
This Gilbertian situation goes right across the Government's policy of free admission for all to our artistic heritage by April 2001, for the reason that the more museums move towards free admission the more likely it is that they will be challenged by Customs. The result of this ridiculous state of affairs is that many museums are discouraged from dropping admission charges altogether. I hope that the Government recall that it was our noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney who, when Labour Minister for the Arts, abolished admission charges; indeed, it was almost the first act of the new Labour government in 1974. That has been modified since by the Conservatives to allow the trustees of each museum to decide whether or not to charge. But our two greatest institutions, the British Museum and the National Gallery, do not charge; and the former has never charged, except for special exhibitions, since its foundation. I wonder how much longer these two great institutions will be able to hold out. The same goes for many other important museums and galleries, such as the National Portrait Gallery, the Wallace, the Tate and the National Galleries of Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, proposes a solution which I support, and I hope that it will receive serious consideration by the Government. I looked at the 1994 VAT Act and noted that the Long Title was not restrictive. Section 33(3)(k), to which the noble Lord referred, allows other bodies to be added by order made by the Treasury. The revenue lost to Customs would not be great: I understand that it would amount to only about £3 million. That figure represents the VAT which the free museums and galleries would be able to recover if Section 33 were extended. This is not a large sum, but it is very important in terms of the institutions' own budgets.
Problems over VAT are beginning to affect decisions to the detriment of our cultural life. I hope that the Government will take action to remove these anomalies. For example, paintings created since 1973 are liable to VAT. That bears very heavily on museums such as the Tate and the Scottish modern art galleries which have large collections of contemporary art. A contemporary painting costing, say, £200,000 would

851
be liable to VAT of £35,000. That is most onerous in relation to any gallery's purchasing power. I hope that my noble friend will do something about it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, the European Commission has said that this refund scheme does not conflict with the EU's common VAT system. The noble Lord gave credence to that by quoting the responsible Head of Unit in the directorate-general of the European Commission concerned with taxation. If there are problems with Brussels I hope that the Government will seek to remove the anomalies and show the same resolution as they showed in their negotiations with Brussels over the ill-judged proposals relating to droit de suite, as a result of which they gained some important concessions and had the backing of all parties in your Lordships' House. If it is just a national problem based on fears of a precedent, which is the usual basis for so much resistance to change, I hope that the Government will take steps to put it right by legislation.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Criekhowell: My Lords, not for the first time the noble Lord. Lord Freyberg, has rendered a service by raising an important issue in this House. But I have learnt the hard way that there is one unalterable rule of politics: when government policy is most illogical Ministers will defend it with particular stubbornness. I fear that the Minister will declare that the present rules are holy writ and cannot be altered. I hope that I am wrong.
The first illogicality with which we are confronted is that, although t is government policy that museum access should be free, the rules which prevent the reclaiming of VAT provide a compelling incentive for national museums to charge. The second illogicality is that local authority museums and galleries can reclaim VAT but national museums and galleries cannot. I illustrate the effect of the incentive with an example. In the case of the National Museums and Galleries of Wales, half the gross income from admissions of about £1 million a year goes in the cost of collection; but recovery of that is worth about double the gross income from admissions.
When recently I asked the noble Lord what his response was likely to be to the case that we intended to present, he told me—I believe with regret—that the advice he had received was absolutely firm: Section 33 of the 1994 Act could not be extended by order to include the national museums and galleries, apparently on the grounds that all those bodies covered by the present exemption levied charges and not taxes. That is a rather different point from the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who said that the issue was whether it was a precept by a local authority.
I understand that the argument within departmental circles is that an exemption that is designed for local authorities which levy rates cannot be extended to bodies which are funded primarily by means of government taxation. I suspect that the Minister will
852
produce other arguments as well, some of which we know by heart. Those arguments are always wheeled out on these occasions and include our old friends "the awkward precedent", "the floodgates once opened cannot be closed" and "the excessive and unbearable cost". All of those arguments can be answered.
I dwell on the first argument: the distinction that is said to exist between a levy and a tax. Can it be seriously argued that a local authority rate paid by me to help provide public services is fundamentally different from a tax paid by me to the Inland Revenue to provide public services? Why should such a narrow difference of nomenclature and technique in raising public funds produce absurd differences of treatment between organisations which provide the same service?
Let us look a little further at local authority funding. A very high proportion of it comes from the rate support grant, not the rates; in other words, taxes. If the original object of the exemption was to prevent a circular transfer of funds in which grants arising from taxation repaid VAT lost by local authorities, surely it is just as desirable to avoid a similar circulation of funds in relation to national museums.
As for the "precedent" and "floodgates" arguments, let us consider what has been done already. The exemption business began with local authority museums and the BBC. It was extended to include ITN so that it could compete with the BBC; and it has been further extended to an extraordinary range of other organisations. Limited steps have been taken, each for a good reason, and limited steps can be taken again.
If the Minister tells us that the distinction between a levy and a tax is important because of the rules of the European common VAT system, then I draw his attention to the response made by Stephen Bill, Head of Unit, Directorate-General Taxation, European Commission, to the Charities Tax Reform Group about the present Section 33 arrangements. He said:
"This refund scheme does not conflict with the European Common VAT system and could be considered as a sort of subsidy granted to the bodies mentioned".
I return to Wales and the example represented by NMGW. There can be no doubt that the introduction of charges has significantly reduced visitor numbers to the National Museum and Gallery in Cathays Park, Cardiff, which has recently been described in the Which? guide to tourist attractions as "an outstanding flagship museum", as well as to the other museums and galleries elsewhere in Wales.
The director tells me that there is no question that free admission for all is what will make NMGW truly accessible. We anticipate that visitor numbers will increase by at least 50 per cent with full free access in the short term and by over 100 per cent in the long term. However, the present substantial income from VAT recovery cannot be put aside by the museum authorities. Budgets are much too tight already, and the museum's plans for the future are dependent on adequate revenue funding. Its capital programme for developments is where the big "gain" from VAT recovery lies. Even if we ignore the £25 million art and £2.2 million Welsh Slate Museum projects already

853
finished, the museum is planning to spend £6.6 million on the Big Pit Museum, £1.3 million on the Museum of the Welsh Woollen Industry and perhaps £20 million on the Industrial and Maritime Museum in Swansea. The ability to claim back VAT represents an essential feature of the funding programme for these projects.
The Big Pit Museum has also been praised by Which? as,
"a vivid record of authentic industrial heritage".
The future of this marvellous museum is now in the balance. The Heritage Lottery Fund has offered a grant of over £5 million to secure its future, but that is dependent on revenue funding of £400,000 a year being forthcoming from the Welsh Assembly and the maintenance of other income. The heritage lottery grant can be used to lever a matching sum from Europe under the Objective 1 programme. The same is true of the much larger Swansea project.
Therefore, what we are talking about this evening in this House is not just something that is important for those of us who believe that our museums and galleries throughout the United Kingdom make a contribution of immense significance to the cultural and social life of the nation, but in Wales they are important too because there current projects form an important part of the programme of economic and social regeneration that the Welsh Assembly has inherited from its predecessors in the Welsh Office. Those pressing for reform have a powerful case. The Government really must respond positively.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, if this debate necessarily has a rather narrow focus, it is none the worse for that. The proposal of my noble friend Lord Freyberg for a small and simple amendment to a tax regulation would have a major effect on progression to what we all believe is the Government's declared aim; namely, universal free access to our national museums and galleries.
The value of VAT recovery, if museums charge for admission, is a very important factor when museums have to decide whether to charge. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has pointed out, that is particularly true if they are embarking on a big building project. There is a great deal involved. My noble friend has explained the matter clearly and succinctly at least twice in your Lordships' House, once today and once in the Arts debate a few weeks ago. There is no need to repeat his explanations, which are admirable. We are grateful to him. I want to support him as emphatically as I can.
There could only ever have been two objections standing in the way. First, it might have been supposed to be inconsistent with EU directives. But as he and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, pointed out, this limited amendment is unlikely to run any such risk. The EU is sympathetic, in principle, to low taxation on cultural expenditure.
854
A second and perhaps more powerful objection might have been the possibility of repercussions; that is to say, that if museums and galleries were brought within the scope of Section 33 a good many other public institutions might clamour for admission through the same door. If that is the case, can we be told who and what they are? Is it genuinely the case that it cannot be done for museums because others would expect the same treatment? If the "floodgate" argument is used, we must be told who will be able to come in on the flood. What other public bodies are there not now qualifying as businesses for VAT that would have to be allowed to do so if non-charging museums were allowed to charge?
The fact is that in allowing local authorities and certain other public institutions, such as the BBC and ITN, to qualify, the 1994 Act did in all logic open the door to museums and galleries. But it is hard to see what other public funded bodies remain to queue for admission on similar grounds. Surely, it is quite absurd if for want of a small, simple and easily introduced amendment to tax regulation, which need have no repercussive effect, present arrangements are allowed to go on undermining the Government's own declared ambition to achieve universal free access to our national museums and galleries.
My noble friend Lord Freyberg asked an interesting question arising out of the free admission of pensioners and children by those museums which otherwise make charges. If the proportion of pensioners and/or children visiting a particular gallery goes up to half the total, Customs and Excise may take the view that the business status of that museum is no longer valid and VAT no longer recoverable. Might the board of such a gallery have to limit the number of pensioners and children it admits because they could not afford to lose the museum's VAT business status? One only has to ask that question to realise what a crazy situation we are discussing. For generations the administration of our country has been generally admired throughout the world. But it is very hard to admire an administration that tolerates an anomaly of this kind without putting it right.
Finally, we need a positive response in this matter sooner rather than later. Museums, like other institutions, have to make plans. They cannot run efficiently without knowing where they are going to stand. A major element of their revenue is at stake. I hope that we shall be encouraged by the Minister's reply. I believe he and his department are in sympathy with my noble friend's proposal.
Three years ago in this House the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was unable to go beyond encouraging museums to see whether a higher proportion of their turnover might be able to qualify as business turnover. The fact is that what matters is whether VAT is recoverable on a museum's main expenditure. Without that recognition we cannot make measurable progress towards what I take to be the Government's aim—that of universal free access.

855
Surely there can be no simpler way of moving in that direction than my noble friend's proposal. My noble friend Lord Freyberg has won the argument, but I beg the Minister, approaching the Treasury, to try to win the day.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on initiating this debate. Universal free admission to national galleries and museums is a cause that I have always supported. My childhood was enriched by family outings to the South Kensington museums. I know that countless children of my generation, many of whose parents were far less able to pay admission charges than my own, benefited greatly from that experience as well.
I see that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will reply to the debate for the Government. It would perhaps have been appropriate had your Lordships allowed him to speak twice: once as the Minister from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which wholeheartedly supports the principle of free admission, and once as the spokesman for the Treasury, which appears to be encouraging Customs and Excise to frustrate it. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, referred to "joined up government"—we hear a lot of that these days—but on this issue it appears that Customs and Excise seems determined to unpick the stitches so laboriously sewn into the tapestry by the DCMS.
I am not a tax lawyer and I do not claim to be an expert on the intricacies of VAT procedures. But I can recognise a good policy when I see one. The aspiration to achieve free admission at the 10 national museums which currently charge and to maintain free admission at those which do not is a policy like that. Chris Smith, the Secretary a' State, deserves a good deal of credit for improving the admission charging regime as much as he has. I strongly support the DCMS's decision taken in December 1998 to set aside £30 million so that in theory free admission for all could have been achieved by April 2001. That was to have been the last step in a three-stage approach which began a year ago with the arrangements to admit children and is being followed next week by the second step of allowing pensioners in for free.
However, to get full value from free admission for children, one has to allow accompanying adults in as well, because so many parents feel that their children need an adult escort when coming up to town to visit a museum or gallery. This is a policy which passes with flying colours new Labour's "For the many, not the few" test. A number of speeches made by members of the Government set out the arguments very clearly. In a press release dated 8th December 1997, Chris Smith said:
"Access is a cornerstone of all this Government's cultural policies, including those to museums and galleries. We want to see access to our cultural treasures made available to the many, not just the few".
856
Earlier that year, in March 1997, when Labour was still in opposition, Dr Jack Cunningham and Mark Fisher, the shadow Ministers, published a document entitled Create the Future: a strategy for cultural policy and the creative economy. In a section headed "Making our national institutions more accessible", they said:
"We are concerned about the introduction of admission charges in national museums. These great collections have been paid for, and maintained by the British people.
We will review the evidence on charging. Some evidence suggests that high charges can lead to a big decline in attendance".
That is certainly true.
If one looks at the visitor statistics for the museums which have introduced charges, the picture is very clear. In 1986–87, the last year before charges were introduced, the Natural History Museum had 2.5 million visitors. In the first full year after charges, the number had fallen to 1.6 million. By 1996–97, the figure was still only 1.8 million. The fall at the Science Museum was even worse: from 3.16 million in 1986–87 to 1.12 million in 1989–90 and back up to only 1.5 million in 1996–97. Those figures have kindly been provided to me by the National Art Collections Fund and they differ slightly, but not in a material respect, from those which appear in the article in the Guardian today.
I have no doubt that if the National Gallery and the British Museum were forced to drop their present free admission policy and start charging, they would lose a huge number of their existing 5 million or so visitors. They would also be breaking faith with their benefactors who donated their treasures on the understanding that the people would be free to see them without charge. They might not lose too many of the devoted all-day visitors, but there would certainly be an end to what one might call the "lunchtime drop-ins", the office workers with an hour to spare who like to immerse themselves briefly in our art and antiquity treasures. They certainly would not spend £10, or even a fiver, for a short visit to the National Gallery or the British Museum. I should hate to see them deprived of that opportunity.
I occasionally hear the argument that while it may be okay to let British people in for free, the absence of charges means that we are subsidising foreign tourists. That is a pathetic argument. None of us expects to pay more than the locals for services in cities abroad when we travel as tourists, and in any case we should remember how much foreign tourists contribute to the economic welfare of London and other cities as tourist attractions. If more come here because our finest museums and art galleries are free, we should welcome that and say "thank you" to them.
Other speakers are better qualified than I to advise on whether Section 33 of the VAT Act 1994 can be amended in the way that the National Art Collections Fund and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, have proposed. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord McIntosh has to say about that. If it is indeed the case that national museums can be brought within the scope of Section 33 and join local authorities and public institutions like the BBC in being able to recover VAT, that would seem to be a

857
sensible and obvious route to adopt. But if it cannot be done in that way, I do hope that the DCMS and the Treasury can get together to find a solution.
For if it is right that £30 million should be set aside to help the museums achieve free admission by 2001, as the DCMS already has done, how can it be wrong to find just a little more to solve the problem completely?
6.5 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, not only for introducing this theme but for his very clear exposition of the position and for introducing the admirable solution which has been put forward by the National Art Collections Fund. We are very much in the noble Lord's debt for doing so.
As a trustee of the British Museum, I am proud that the British Museum does not charge admission and that it has never done so. I believe that all trustees of the British Museum are proud of that circumstance. Long before I became a trustee of the British Museum, I found it a pleasure and a privilege, as a British citizen, to be able to enter that museum, the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery or the Tate Gallery without charge to see the great national treasures which generations of citizens have given to this country and others which have been purchased with taxpayers' money. It would be a sorry day if charges had to be levied in this area, which is of course a possibility.
We applauded the Labour manifesto which made clear that it was Labour policy to introduce free admission to national museums. We applaud—I am sure that I do not speak only for the British Museum—the strenuous efforts which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has made in this direction. I very much look forward to the endorsement of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, as the representative in this House of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, of that admirable position.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has correctly referred to the Gilbertian position in which the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government finds himself. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has correctly referred to that ambiguous position. For in this House he is not only the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport in the land of Titipu; he is also the Minister for Treasury affairs in the land of Titipu. So he stands Janus-like, looking in both directions. I very much fear that he may also have the role of Lord High Executioner in this matter.
Does the noble Lord not appreciate—it is a rhetorical question: he is very well informed; of course he appreciates—that if the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Science Museum or the Imperial War Museum were to abolish admission charges, they
858
would at once, through this Gilbertian catch-22 situation, be obliged to pay VAT on their expenses? They would not only forgo the income from admission charges, which they might be willing or able to do, but they would also be subjected to that additional burden.
I should like to illustrate the difficulty by referring to the British Museum. It finds itself in considerable financial difficulties, although it is very grateful for the help it has received from the Government on a one-off basis for this year in this matter. In a normal year the British Museum suffers recoverable VAT of around £750,000 on running expenses and up to £1 million on capital expenditure. That expenditure is difficult to maintain and would be alleviated by the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.
Moreover, the situation has been exacerbated by the Great Court project where total VAT costs of about £15 million are at risk. I was much enlightened by the Answer given yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. We read that, in terms of the National Lottery element of the British Museum's Great Court project, the estimate of future VAT recovery from project costs is £8.7 million.
I am happy to hear that and I have a two-part question to put to the noble Lord. First, can he confirm that if the lottery grant of £45.7 million is appropriately expended the British Museum will be able to recover the £8.7 million? Secondly, as the lottery grant was approximately 50 per cent of the total cost of the Great Court project, can he give an explicit assurance that the British Museum will be able to recover the other half, thereby giving a total recovery of £17 million? I can assure the noble Lord that that would be most welcome.
Perhaps I may also point out to the noble Lord that the British Museum has another important and inspiring project; the study centre project. It was to be financed by a PFI arrangement of some complexity. I have to tell the House—I would tell the noble Lord, but I believe that he knows it already—that that project is currently stalled, partly due to the VAT component which pushes it beyond the limits of viability. I should be delighted if he could assure the House and the British Museum that it need not pay VAT on that project either.
Finally, the amount of time and effort which the British Museum, like other museums, must spend on hiring consultants and all manner of specialists to analyse how best we may arrange our affairs is absurd. On that issue alone we have spent almost 18 months of management time and tens of thousands of pounds on expert advice in order to try to reduce our VAT liabilities. The situation is ridiculous as we have already been told that we must pay back to the Government a large proportion of the grant in aid that we received from the Government. It is truly Gilbertian and I hope that tonight the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will find himself also the Minister for joined-up government in the land of Titipu.
6.12 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on initiating this important discussion. There are a number of reasons why the issue is important.
The Labour Party has a longstanding commitment—one which dates back to its inception—to make culture and the arts accessible to the people. In more recent times, since the general election in 1997, that commitment has expressed itself in several ways. The first was the action announced in 1998 by my honourable friend the Secretary of State to abolish museum and gallery charges over a three-year period. But, as a Labour Government, we have had at the core of our programme a commitment to deal with social exclusion. Indeed, several of the reports produced by the policy action teams have referred to cultural poverty, the lack of access to the arts and its impact on the quality of life for people on low incomes. Finally, reference should be made in the debate to the priority which we as a party and government have placed on education and raising standards.
All of that might lead one to believe that the question to be answered is how the Government make it possible to abolish museum and art gallery charges rather than whether it is possible. Everyone must welcome the abolition of charges for children and the fact that within the next few days pensioners will cease to pay. None the less, it still costs £28 for two adults to take their children to the Natural History Museum and the Science Museum in one day, as I did myself not so long ago. These charges can and do act as a barrier. It would be a great shame if, for the lack of imaginative solutions, political will, a row between departments of state or whatever, some museums and art galleries find it impossible to abolish charges.
I have a particular affection for the Museum of Scotland—I hope that my Scottish colleagues will forgive me for mentioning it—and its wonderful new wing which was completed and opened by the Queen in the past year. It is a beautifully designed building, offering imaginative and exciting exhibitions. My family enjoy gang there on every occasion we visit Edinburgh.
The director of the Museum of Scotland and many of his fellow directors want to abolish admission charges. During the weekend, he was quoted in the national press as saying that if the Government agreed to the proposal he would reconsider free admission to his museum. As a result of the significant cost of the recent building works at the Museum of Scotland, if it were to abolish entry fees it would be liable to VAT on its building works which would run into millions of pounds.
I am aware teat the Museum of Scotland is the responsibility of the devolved Scottish Parliament, but VAT is the responsibility of UK-wide statute. It seems very unlikely that the Scottish Parliament will be willing or able to make available funds to meet such a large shortfall.
860
I am really puzzled and ask my noble friend the Minister to use his best endeavours to solve the problem. I know that, being the cultured man that he is, he must be sympathetic to the situation. I beg him to try to make sense of why bodies providing a public service funded out of taxation must use that money to pay tax. Surely, it is for that reason that bodies such as the BBC are already listed in the schedule and are therefore exempt.
The particular relevance to museums is that the current policy of VAT rules create a big financial incentive to charge for admission. A charging museum such as the Museum of Scotland is able to reclaim the VAT which it pays and so has no incentive to change. The VAT reclaimed is often greater than the income generated by ticket sales. That does not make sense to me. What appears to be happening here is that the Government's VAT regime provides a strong financial reward for doing something which restricts access and use to museums and is against government policy.
One answer might be to increase grants to the museums and art galleries to enable them to overcome the immediate VAT problem, but that will merely increase the amount given out in grants to take back in VAT. It would also put a questionmark over all new capital projects, new exhibitions and developments of any kind. I know that my honourable friend the Minister for Museums has put together a powerful case for change. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has also done so. I hope and trust that my noble friend the Minister, who carries briefs for both departments, will be able to use his good offices and good sense to help us make progress on the issue.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for introducing the debate. In doing so, he is doing a splendid job in carrying on the battle from Lord Clancarty, who we greatly miss on these occasions.
I was shocked to read in this week's edition of The House magazine that I am one of the few Conservative Peers remaining who is a member of a government quango. That may be because the board of trustees of a museum is not my idea of a quango. It may he because the job is entirely unremunerated. It may al so be because I fondly believed that I was appointed for my strong Liverpool connections and my interest and involvement in arts and heritage issues in the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and in your Lordships' House.
Be that as it may, for noble Lords who may not have read The House magazine, I declare my interest as a trustee since 1993 of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside. It is the only English national museum outside London which consists of eight separate parts, including the famous Walker Art Gallery, a fine maritime museum and a new conservation centre, which is unrivalled elsewhere, not only in this country but more widely in Europe.
The general arguments in favour of extending Section 33 of the VAT Act 1994 to include national museums and galleries have already been well made.

861
I support the arguments, especially those advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who has long been the champion of this particular VAT issue, and also those of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, who has such expertise in this field. But I believe that all noble Lords have put forward the most convincing arguments in support of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.
It may serve to illustrate the issue further if I explain our experience in Merseyside. Two years ago, the trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside were forced, most reluctantly, to introduce charges because of diminishing government funding and ever-increasing costs. We pitched the charges at a very low level: at £3 for what we call "an eight pass", which entitles individuals to visit each of the eight separate parts of our National Museums and Galleries, and also on a season ticket basis. We also introduced family tickets at £5, again covering the eight parts of the museums and galleries and on a season ticket basis.
Last year, we partially reversed that system of charging because we now offer free admission to children and old-age pensioners. That has been funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and we hope that it will keep up that funding. However, if the numbers of old-age pensioners and children exceed 50 per cent of our total visitors, as has already been mentioned, we risk an inquiry by Customs and Excise and risk losing our VAT advantage.
Therefore, the income from the admissions policy has not been so very large. However, the significant factor for our cash flow has been that we can recoup some £½ million of VAT as a consequence of the charging. But we could be affected even more in the future. We have a "2001 project", as do many other institutions, but ours is intended to revitalise the Liverpool Museum and the Museum of Liverpool Life, as well as carrying out work in the Walker Art Gallery. That will enable us to display better many of our treasures which at present are not available to the public. However, it has involved fund-raising to the tune of some £34 million. Happily, we received a substantial grant from the National Lottery of some £24 million. However, the VAT amount that we would lose if we changed our charging policy would be some £6 million. That is a significant amount and reinforces the points made so well by my noble friend Lord Renfrew.
It must be said that, after introducing those charges, we believe that the number of visitors dropped by approximately 10 per cent, in spite of the low level of admission charges. I say "we believe" because direct comparisons are not really possible. The method of counting visitors prior to charging was perhaps not as accurate as it now is. However, for a Government who are keen on access and on bringing as many people as possible to the arts, any diminution in the number of visitors must be regrettable.
For all the reasons advanced in the debate, I very much support the terms of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, in particular because the
862
Treasury has the power, because it would not require primary legislation and because the cost can be identified and contained. I look forward to a sympathetic reply from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, like others, I feel a great sense of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Freyberg for his enthusiastic perseverance in this subject. Section 33 of the VAT Act does not sound like the most dramatic subject. It sounds rather dry and dusty. However, as noble Lords have pointed out, it is hugely important to those who are trying to run museums and galleries and trying to carry out the Government's avowed policy of free entry.
I must declare a non-financial interest as a trustee of the National Museums of Scotland. I believed that I might have had to crave indulgence from your Lordships to speak about matters north of the Border since the Motion refers to museums and galleries which are the responsibility of central government. However, I am reliably informed that in this context central government covers Scotland as well and includes institutions funded by the Scottish Executive through the block grant. Although we have one United Kingdom, we are capable of having more than one central government in this context.
In Scotland we have two institutions which are covered by the subject of the debate: one is the National Museums of Scotland; the other is the National Galleries of Scotland. One—the National Museums—charges, although not for children, and with special provision for pensioners; the other—the National Galleries—does not charge. The National Museums of Scotland, which is the area with which I am most familiar—and I very much appreciate the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the splendid new Museum of Scotland (that is absolutely true; it is terrific!)—have been affected in very much the same way as have other museums, for example, in Wales, as noble Lords have pointed out. The number of our visitors went down by approximately 30 to 40 per cent when we started charging, although there has been some upward movement since the Museum of Scotland was opened because it is so attractive.
However, the key point that I wish to make with regard to finances is that on ticket sales the National Museums of Scotland receive some £550,000 a year, not counting expenses. But with regard to reclaimed VAT, the museums receive approximately £800,000 a year, which is considerably more. Behind those figures is the even more significant point that on building projects the VAT charges can be enormous.
It is at that point that I believe that we move out of the Gilbertian situation into something more akin to Alice in Wonderland. The problem is not simply that at the end of, let us say, February, one says, "We have enough children who are coming in free. OK, no more children until the next financial year". It is that one simply does not know what the rules will be. If, for

863
example, the National Museums of Scotland now follow government intention in Scotland and stop charging, at some point will Customs and Excise say, "Well, you never really were a genuinely commercial organisation. By the way, some of the VAT that you reclaimed on the building of this new museum will now go back to Customs and Excise"? It is that issue—the Alice in Wonderland element—which makes it so difficult and which makes it necessary for so much time and administrative effort to be put into this particular point, rather than what the museums and galleries really want to do.
I mentioned the National Galleries of Scotland and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, who is a trustee, will want to speak about that. It seems to me that, looking at it from a sister institution, it is a classic example of the problem. It is a non-charging institution. Therefore, it cannot claim back money from VAT. However, more significantly, it, too, has a wonderful project—the Playfair project—to re-do the old Royal Scottish Academy and to link that with the National Gallery and to do many things which are greatly to the benefit of people in Scotland. However, I gather that it could suffer a VAT charge of up to £3 million, and it will have to so structure the project that there will be the maximum number of commercial things going on so that they can then reclaim the maximum of VAT. That seems to be a classic example of the circular problem that we have got into. That project will be partly funded by the Scottish Executive as well as by the National Heritage Lottery Fund.
So in effect, the Scottish Executive will be providing money and another part of the overall government system will be taking back the money. It is a classic case of the Government giveth and the Government taketh away, but there will be precious few people who say, "Blessed be the name of the Government", unless and until—and I hope the Minister can tell us this—they are able to sort out that contradiction. I am sure that, in that case, all of us who are interested in this matter will give a very considerable cheer.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, before I say anything on this subject, so eloquently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, I must declare my sundry and manifold interests in the museums of the United Kingdom. I was a member of the Museums and Galleries Commission, may it rest in peace, for more than 15 years and chairman for five. I am currently deputy chairman of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery I have been a vice-president of the Museums Association and I have been on the Council of the National Museums of Wales and so on. All those appointments have one thing in common: they never paid me a penny.
So it is with a pure heart and humble voice that I can speak about the acute problems caused by what appears to me essentially a simple interdepartmental squabble. For it is surely absurd that the Government's own policy on free access, fostered and
864
nurtured by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, should be blocked and blighted by Customs and Excise.
Let us take the case of the National Portrait Gallery, a small but highly prestigious and eminently successful national gallery. For over 100 years it has been exemplary as a non-charging public institution, freely and democratically open to everyone. Except that I hat is not quite true. I must confess that there was one brief and disastrous episode in 1973–74 when, against all our instincts, we bowed in the house of Rimmon and obeyed the requirement of the government then in power under Sir Edward Heath. We paid dearly for our pusillanimity as we put on the required admission charge, raked in the pennies of the poor and watched our visitor numbers plummet. Fortunately, it was not long after that that the Heath government failed to maintain the confidence of the country and we were able to drop our admission charges and return, duly penitent, to the paths of righteousness.
But for the NPG it was a salutary experience and we shall not do it again. We survived the Thatcher years without charging for admission and in 1997 we hoped for better days. And our hopes were not dashed when the present Government espoused the policy of free access for all. But its faithfulness to that policy has cost the NPG dear. Its current grant-in-aid is £5.115 million. We calculate that unreclaimable VAT costs us approximately £300,000 per annum.
That money goes straight back to the Treasury, whence it came, in that "circular transfer" roundabout. That sum is the equivalent of mounting two major exhibitions a year of the style, status and popularity of the current exhibition of the photographic work of the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, which has attracted some 30,000 visitors in its first four weeks, or our recent Cartier-Bresson exhibition which brought in thousands who would never otherwise have dreamt of entering our doors.
Alternatively, £300,000 would meet the cost of late-night opening two days a week. That is a development which successive Ministers have urged upon us, from the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, who never tired of commending to us the example of Buffalo, USA—which seemed, like Arkwright's shop, to be "open all hours"—to the present incumbent, Chris Smith, who would equally like to see us "alight at night". We would love to accede to their requests, if only we did not have that running sore of £300,000 per annum to deal with.
If we considered only the most urgent needs of our own institution, £300,000 would cover the annual cost of our conservation and collection management programmes. Again, we worry continually about maintaining our academic and scholarly standards and £300,000 would fund four years of cataloguing our photographs and reference collections. For £300,000 we could undertake the re-display, urgently needed, at our outstations at Bodelwyddan and Beningbrough. But none of that can be done so long as the VAT bill lands on the director's desk.

865
This matter goes far deeper than a mere spat between government departments. The principle of free access to our great national collections in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales must be reaffirmed and reasserted and properly funded.
As evidence of the importance of free access to the cultural health of our nation, I offer the example of Professor Margaret Gowing, a trustee of the NPG and other museums, who died in November 1998. She was a London girl. The poverty into which her family sank when her father died of tuberculosis left a lasting impression on her. She later became Oxford's first Professor of the History of Science and was one of the few scholars who were fellows of both the Royal Society and the British Academy. One obituary of her states that,
"she took full advantage of the experiences that London offered a poor child, and it is her memory of the benefits of free entry to national museums that fired her anger at the introduction of charges at the Imperial War Museum (from whose Board of Trustees she consequently resigned)".
Thank God she did not have to resign from the Trustees of the NPG. The NPG is one clear example of the necessity of this change.
Amendment of Section 33 seems a sensible way forward. If my noble friend, in his reply, shows that the matter cannot be resolved in that way, I hope that he will suggest any other way he may know or at least promise to leave no bureaucrat unbothered and no civil servant unharassed until we rid the great national museums of that impediment, that albatross around the neck, that ball and chain around the foot and, in this matter at least grant them,
"a happy issue out of all their afflictions".
6.38 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for initiating this debate. There is a strong case for what he proposes. Not least is that so in the light of the background to the Question. The Government gave a commitment to encourage free admissions to national museums and galleries. If in so doing the Government had provided two other related assurances, then, of course, there might have been no need for this debate today: the first necessary assurance is compensation to museums and galleries for loss of income from charging; and the second is compensation to them for their loss of business status and recoverable VAT.
Such assurances from the Government may be intended. As yet, they have not been properly given. Nor is it even clear that the Government still uphold their earlier commitment to free admissions in the first place. No doubt there have been statements of intent to promote free admissions to children and pensioners. However, to go no further falls far short of their earlier commitment to free admissions for all.
Therefore, the first question is whether the Government are still committed to free admissions for all and, if not, why that commitment may have become watered down.
866
Secondly, if it may have been altered and the original government commitment to free admissions for all has thus been replaced by a compromise government policy of free admissions for some only, what plans do the Government have for the administration of compensation? Under a scheme of partially free admissions, how will museums and galleries be compensated for loss of income from charging and for loss of VAT recoverability?
That leads in to the case of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. His proposed solution offers two key benefits. The first is consistency between the cultural aim of free admissions and the fiscal rule of no VAT recoverability without business status. Extension of Section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to national museums and galleries provides the accommodation. Yet one allegation against the proposal is that its accommodation would invite a challenge from Europe. However, that is not so. We have already heard today of the EC statement which construes the accommodation as a relevant subsidy.
The fear has also been expressed that the extension of Section 33 to museums and galleries would then have to apply to many other institutions and charities as well. That is surely a groundless fear. Owing to their status, national museums and galleries may easily be classified and restricted as sole beneficiaries. Then a specious differentiation is attempted between institutions such as local authorities, the BBC and ITN to which Section 33 currently extends and national museums and galleries to which it does not as yet extend. The claim is that the differentiation is valid since local authorities and the BBC may raise taxes, levies and so on, while national museums and galleries do not. Nevertheless, as has been said, national museums serve the whole nation. They and their collections are for the long term. Their financing is for the public good. Thus, attempted disqualification against them and differentiation between them and other public institutions to which Section 33 now extends reflect rather narrow and specious reasoning.
That connects to the second main benefit which the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, offers. This assists the Gilbertian predicament to which my noble friend Lord Renfrew referred and it illustrates the unhappy and circuitous tale of Dear Lisa's bucket. The Government may now say that the hole in the bucket of the free admissions commitment is that of the difficulty of administering compensation for loss of VAT recoverability. The Government may now say that it is thus better to compromise or drop free admissions rather than confront a particular administrative obstacle or technicality.
Fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others are good workmen. They can enable the Government to keep their word on free admissions. And their remedy can prevent the degeneration of a solid bucket of commitment into a misleading flash in the pan of unreliability.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on introducing the debate, but rather more on introducing such an elegant solution to a problem with which clearly previous governments, as well as this one, have wrestled. At this moment, short of some deus ex machine by my noble friend Lord McIntosh, it is game, set and match for the proposal.
Since I interpret—as did the noble Lord, Lord Wilson—the phrase "central Government" to include the devolved Scottish Parliament, I must properly declare an interest as a trustee of the National Galleries of Scotland. Unfortunately, I share the fate of my noble friend Lord Morris, in that it is an unpaid occupation and therefore I derive no commercial benefit from the case which I am advancing. But I readily admit that the National Galleries of Scotland would benefit to the tune of about £225,000 per year on running colts if the proposal were adopted. Significantly more importantly, however, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, pointed out, is that they currently have an ambitious programme to develop the Royal Scottish Academy building, known as "the Playfair project", the costs of which are in excess of £20 million. The savings on VAT on that project would be extremely substantial.
Like my noble friend Lord Faulkner, I refer to the many roles played by my noble friend Lord McIntosh in this House. Indeed, glancing down the Order Paper, in all four debases which may occur on the matters confronting us during the remainder of the day, my noble friend Lord McIntosh has a starring role. Such versatility can be only envied. However, I do not envy him the dilemma of being the Government's spokesman in this House for both the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury. I do not wish to induce any schizophrenia in my noble friend, but joined-up government can go only so far. He must decide at some point which side of the fence he is on. I suspect that we shall receive a more sympathetic reply from my noble friend Lord McIntosh as spokesman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.
What we are all arguing for here is consistency. At present, the museums and galleries which charge for admission and are therefore out of sympathy with government policy have the benefit of reclaiming almost all their VAT. The museums and galleries which, in sympathy with government policy, do not charge for admission lose out. One might believe that the main benefit of charging is the cash that one draws out of the till from admission charges, but it has been estimated that at least half the benefit is the ability to recover VAT. We are therefore currently disincentivising museums and galleries to endorse and embrace government policy.
At present there is a clear inducement to galleries to charge and a penalty on those which do not. The Government must make up their minds which is more important: £3.1 million of lost VAT revenue to a Treasury which, through its sound management of the
868
economy, is doing rather well in terms of receipts, or the fulfilment of the Government's policy on free access to museums and galleries. Unlike my noble friend Lord McIntosh, I do not hold any briefs, but in the overall scheme of things I should think that fulfilling the obligation and the promise to try to achieve free access must take precedence over a mere £3.1 million in VAT.
Let us consider also the number of institutions—it is almost embarrassing—to which Section 33 already extends: police authorities; the BBC; ITN; river purification boards; internal drainage boards; port health authorities; not quite Uncle Torn Cobbleigh and all. Adding in museums and galleries would be entirely consistent with what the Government wish to do. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has produced a Motion which would remove one of the main obstacles to national museums getting rid of admission charges and would therefore eliminate the present conflict between the Government's taxation policy and their cultural policy. It would ensure that the loss of revenue to the Treasury is measurable, because the proposal is clearly ringfenced and contained. The estimated loss would be £3.1 million. It would have a direct and significant impact on the museums' delivery of public service.
At the moment, a great deal of management time and money is spent on trying to avoid paying VAT by doing all kinds of things which museums do not particularly want to do, but by which they can save the payment of VAT. That produces also a distortion of management decisions. The proposal would clearly protect the Government from any repercussive effects of a further extension of Section 33. As has already been mentioned, it would be acceptable to the European Commission. Above all, it is extremely easy to achieve. My understanding is that it can be achieved by Order in Council subject to a negative resolution and it would be easy to administer. For all those reasons, I hope that my noble friend Lord McIntosh, when he comes to reply, will feel that he is speaking for DCMS rather than for the Treasury.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, speaking at the end of a single-issue debate such as this, I can say without fear of contradiction that virtually everything on the subject has already been said. As a result, I can be extremely brief. The Government's laudable, although perhaps utopian, commitment to free entry to museums seems to be under some real threat. Therefore, they should welcome the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. We all greatly thank the noble Lord for the opportunity to discuss the matter.
It is interesting that as the last speaker on the list I follow a group of noble Lords who have been in entire agreement in different ways and with slightly different reasons. There has been no dissent about the suggestion being a good one. The case for extending Section 33 has been well made. There is no need to repeat the arguments. By accepting the case, the Government would clearly help the national museums and galleries for which they are responsible.

869
Furthermore, there is a real threat that if VAT charges to those museums and galleries which do not charge cannot be reclaimed, some of those museums may be compelled to charge in the future. That runs totally and absolutely counter to the Government's commitment to free entry.
I particularly look forward to what the Minister has to say about the problem of children and pensioners. That seems on the face of it a real problem; if over half come in free to a museum, will Customs and Excise say, "Well, you're no longer a business and so you can't reclaim VAT"? It certainly would have a devastating effect.
As a number of your Lordships have pointed out, I am sure that the Minister will want to do all that he can to ensure free entry to museums and galleries. He will do that wearing his DCMS hat, but I daresay the Treasury may have found some way of preventing him being overly helpful to the cause of free entry, even though the Treasury of course has the power to add to the list of bodies identified under Section 33 without primary legislation and even though a number of bodies are allowed to recover VAT that is incurred, despite not being businesses.
In this category will fall most particularly the numerous local authorities which have museums and galleries in their care and which open free. They can reclaim VAT. I hope that the Minister has some good news for us this evening but, if he has not got some good news, I urge him to please "keep on the case". That was a point made much more eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I hope that the Minister can find a way of allowing museums and galleries to reclaim VAT. If they cannot do that the consequences could greatly affect free entry, a cause which is so dear to the Government's heart.
6.51 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the plea put so eloquently before us by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, is narrow and precise: yet many contributions made by your Lordships have, quite understandably, gone way beyond the narrow confines of his Motion. I shall not, however, attempt to go down the paths already trodden by so many earlier speakers.
Let me say at the outset that I have looked very quickly through my own party's new arts policy, which has been rushed to me on the Bench, and see that our fundamental aim is very close to that of the Labour Party, although it uses slightly different words. We would make it a primary function of government to support the arts and to help to make them accessible to all. That echoes what I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said earlier. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will disagree with that.
We have had from various noble Lords a foretaste of what the noble Lord's reply to the debate may be and the difficulties in which he may find himself among the various functions which he performs so expertly. He is extremely versatile—so versatile that on
870
one previous occasion he gave us a snatch of Gilbert and Sullivan at the end of an arts debate. One imagines that the noble Lord might be tempted to appear rather in the fashion of a music hall comedian, perhaps in a suit of which half is that of a tax collector and the other half that of a Minister for the arts and having an argument with himself.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Viscount should recall another song from "Iolanthe": "united we sing as one individual".
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, there you are! There is a very good example and a foretaste of the very good-humoured answer we are likely to get from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I think he is probably going to answer us as a Minister for the arts, representing the DCMS. We shall have the advantage, with all his experience, of receiving his advice on how the matters before us can be resolved, if indeed they can be.
Many of your Lordships have described the situation before us in terms of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland or even as Gilbertian. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred to that, but actually the situation is becoming almost Kafkaesque. We have a government who tell us that free admission and access for all is a prime aim, and we on these Benches agree with that. Yet here we have a situation which has moved on from the one we discussed some weeks ago—or was it days ago?—when the moneys available for free access were described as insufficient. Those museums and galleries which charge have the benefit of recouping their VAT, because they are adjudged to be a business. Those that do not charge—and many of them have grants from various sources as well as from lottery funds—and have great plans will find that their VAT bills are enormous. They will be crippling.
That is the extraordinary position in which we find ourselves. I find even more extraordinary the Kafkaesque prospect that if this situation continues there will be arguments with Customs and Excise, and the uncertainty that brings, about partial free admissions, as has been mentioned by other speakers. Following the Imperial War Museum case, where it was accepted that it was possible that some visitors who came in free of charge did not materially affect the position, we have been given fair notice that Customs and Excise will now look very carefully at what museums and galleries do by way of mitigating their position. That may prove very difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, asked from his experience whether it was desirable for museums and galleries to be spending all this time worrying about VAT, rather than getting on with what they should be doing: namely, providing excellent quality services for all, particularly for young and underprivileged people, throughout the country.
It seems an extraordinary situation because anyone who cares for the arts—a Rip van Winkle if you like, and here I have introduced yet another level of a Winkle-esque situation—who arrives here and discovers this state of affairs will wonder what kind of

871
a country they have arrived in. If they arrived in France or Germany they would find a very different situation, because in those countries they spend almost double what we spend in terms of taxation moneys on the arts.
This whole situation is set against a background which is familiar, even in local government areas where museums and galleries come within the mechanism of Section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act. Within the English local government finance system the arts are not classified separately and are not taken into account separately in applications for revenue support grant. Is it surprising, therefore, that arts provision across the board, let alone from museums and galleries, is extremely patchy?
It is against that background that you get departmental squabbling, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, described it. I do not think there is any squabbling: I wish there were, and I hope that the noble Lord will tell us that there is squabbling.
The other evening, together with parliamentary friends, I went to a presentation in another place which was organised by the All Party Group for the Arts in London, at which the mayoral candidates were quizzed on their plans for the arts. I myself asked a question on this very point, and the only satisfactory answer I had—satisfactory to me because it was robust—was from Mr Dobson. Mr Dobson made a colourful comparison: he said that in the Wild West—and this is why I shall put a cross somewhere on the paper for Mr Dobson in the forthcoming election—people settled matters with bullets, but we are parliamentarians He went on to say that it was outrageous, and that the Government would settle this by using legislation. I like that approach. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether that will be possible. I hope that it will be possible, because this situation cannot continue.
In preparation for this debate, I have tried to explain the issue to several friends, including some who know the arts. Their reaction has been to open their mouths in amazement and say, "That is ludicrous!".
Perhaps I may make one more specific point. What consideration has been given to the wishes of those who, over the years, have made bequests to museums and galleries, or those who will do so in the future? Almost without exception, such bequests are tied to the prospect of free admission for all. This situation runs absolutely counter to the wishes of those who make bequests. The Mahon bequest illustrates the problem.
If there is another way of dealing with this matter, I hope that the Minister will tell us. After attending a briefing, I understand that the European Union is not bothered about it and is willing to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the UK Government. For that reason, I hope flat the Minister—without singing another aria in this Gilbertian situation—will be able to cheer us. Unless a sensible approach is adopted, the day-to-day situation looks dire for those who have to deal with it on that basis.
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the vexed issue of VAT rules and how they inhibit the ability of trustees to abolish entrance fees for museums and galleries. I was interested to hear about the situation from the points of view of my experienced noble friends Lady Hooper and Lord Renfrew, as trustees respectively of the Merseyside Museum and the British Museum. They told the House about the many problems involved in administering the system.
From what we have heard in today's contributions, it is certainly apparent that the Government have not so far thought through the full impact of their policy on free access. I doubt if I shall be as generous as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and absolve the Minister from answering on behalf of the Treasury. I remind noble Lords that in this House, unlike in another place, Ministers answer for the Government. However, I am sure that the particular Minister on the Front Bench tonight will be able to do that perfectly well.
This problem was raised some 15 months ago by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. In December 1998, in a Starred Question, he asked the Government whether the VAT implications in this matter had been worked out. The answer from the Minister was something along the lines of, "We are still talking about it", or more accurately, "We are in negotiations on this point". Yet we are no further forward. I also note that when the Government talked then on the subject of free access, they did mean free entry.
However, I noticed that in the speech of my noble friend Lord Dundee he sought a commitment from the Government that their policy remained that of free entry for all. I shall listen closely to the response of the Minister on that point. That is because over the past year or so that I have held this brief I have noticed that the Government talk about free entry, free access, wider access and keeping free those museums currently charging nothing. The policy seems to ebb and flow. I have heard the Government say that they have not really ever pledged—either before the election or in the manifesto—to provide free entry for all to museums. For that reason, I shall be interested to hear what happens tonight.
Whatever the semantics of the matter—and others have referred to semantics tonight—the fact is that throughout these discussions the Government have made the public believe—this is important—that they would introduce free entry to all national museums and galleries. I shall refer again, as I did two weeks ago when this subject was debated, to a Department for Culture, Media and Sport press release from 24th July 1998 in which the Government referred to, "universal free entry in 2001". However, only in February of this year, during Question Time in this House, another variation was made on the theme in response to a

873
Question tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. The Minister described what he called the "wider sense of access" which,
"includes the ways in which museums and galleries can improve the presentation of their collections and improve the hours in which they are made available; it includes the publicity for them: and it includes the way in which they are extended to the wider world outside museums and galleries".
He then went on to say,
"It is that wider sense of access about which the Government are most concerned".—[Official Report, 21/2/00; cols. 7–8.]
If the Government are "most concerned" about the wider issues of access such as publicity and so forth, surely the corollary of that is that they are less concerned about free entry. We then have cause to question how great is their commitment now to the more obvious form of access so far as concerns the public: that is, simply free entry.
As we have already heard, the VAT anomaly bedevils trustees' attempts to give free entry for all. Both tonight and two weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has explained very clearly that the National Art Collections Fund recommends what appears to be a straightforward and comprehensive solution to that problem: Section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 should be amended. I look forward to hearing whether the Government accept this as a solution and, if not, why not. Earlier in the debate my noble friend Lord Crickhowell posed certain forensically detailed and powerful questions about the operation of Section 33, in particular as regards the difference between a levy and a tax. I look forward to hearing the Minister's replies to those questions.
Over the weekend reports in the press stated that the Government intend to reject the recommendation of the National Art Collections Fund and to adopt a compromise procedure; namely, the introduction of free periods of entry to museums for everyone, or perhaps free entry commencing next year only for those adults of working age claiming state benefits. What advice have the Government received about whether this kind of development would provoke a challenge from Customs? Several noble Lords have highlighted all the difficulties that could arise.
Last week the NACF kindly provided a briefing session for interested Peers. As it pointed out, if the balance between paying and non-paying visitors tips too far towards the non-payers, it throws into question the level of "business activity". In short, the more that charging museums move in stages to a complete free admissions policy, the more likely they are to encounter a non-business challenge from Customs. The NACF says that this will result in greater financial uncertainty and lead to disputes and possibly litigation, all of which would have a significant impact on museum and gallery management costs and resources.
Today the three Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—and I say that advisedly because I think that it is a disappointment that someone of the Minister's ability is only a spokesman for DCMS—are all over the place, both
874
geographically and figuratively. They are visiting St Ives, York and Liverpool to mark the start of free entry for pensioners which comes in at the end of this week. But, as several noble Lords have mentioned today, is the Minister aware that Customs and Excise has already advised that the introduction of free entry to pensioners is in itself likely to tip the scales against museums and make them fall into the category of non-businesses? My noble friend Lord Crathorne drew careful attention to this problem. Such a move would force museums to lose their rights to VAT reclaims. If that happens, will the Government compensate them for that loss, because they would have caused it?
I was intrigued by the reference made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to last Monday's meeting of the All-Party London Arts and Culture Group. I, too, listened with interest to what was said at that meeting. I do not often quote Labour candidates, but I should like to do so as well. I took a careful note. The official Labour candidate said that he is "fanatically in favour" of free entry to London museums. He said:
"The idea that some preposterous quirk in the VAT law should stop it is barmy".
He does not mince his words. But, unlike the noble Viscount, I shall not be putting my cross against his name. I cannot quite go that far. Having heard the debate, I wonder whether on this occasion the Minister will be able to announce a change in the law and make Mr Dobson's day.
7.10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, today's debate has been a splendid cry of support for more funding for museums and galleries, and for wider and free access. We should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for that.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for finally reminding the House that I speak for the Government and not specifically for the Treasury or for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. If I were to stand at the Dispatch Box and speak on a sectoral basis for a particular department and run the risk of someone else standing up and saying something different on behalf of another department—whether it should happen to me or to anyone else is not important, despite the relatively friendly teasing I have endured this evening—I would say that this Government are all over the place. That is not the case.
The published subject of the debate is VAT and national museums and galleries. However, I think it is fair to say that the thrust of the debate has, quite properly, been about levels of public funding for museums and galleries. If that is the case—I believe it to be not only true but desirable—then we should talk about net levels of funding: the funding that goes to museums and galleries.
Noble Lords should not assume that we in government are fools and that we do not think about the implications of taking money back in VAT from any public service, be it museums and galleries or anything else. If it were not the case that, at all times since the general election, those in the Treasury,

875
Customs and Excise and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport had been fully aware of the VAT implications of free access, we would be properly worthy of criticism. But of course we have always been aware of the implications; we have always been conscious that the net funding, the net burden on the public purse, is the proper consideration.
However, having said that, let me set out our views—they have not changed—about wider and free access, about the nature of VAT itself and the problems we face in trying to define who should or should not pay VAT. I should like to look at some potential solutions and then specifically at Section 33 of the VAT Act 1994, its history, the principles of preception on which Section 33 is based, the European dimension and the issue of precedent, which other people call by the more emotive name of "floodgate". I should then like to reach some kind of conclusion.
First, let me say about free access what I think your Lordships know. Funds have been available to permit free access for children since April 1999—and will be available for free access for the over 60s from 1st April (this coming Saturday)—to the currently charging national museums funded by DCMS. We are continuing to assess the most effective ways of enhancing access in 2001, and we shall make an announcement on that in due course. On that, I do not intend to make any advance or retreat from previous policy. I am simply repeating what has been the position for a very long time.
Free access for children has been very successful for those museums which previously charged. To the end of January, visits by children were up by 18 per cent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, free access for the over 60s is being launched today by the Secretary of State at the National Railway Museum in York and by other Ministers in St Ives and in Liverpool. We have also provided the funds to allow the currently DCMS nationals to stay free.
I welcome what the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said about Sir Denis Mahon and his recent bequest of his wonderful collection of Italian baroque paintings. Some time ago, I was sent to Bologna to—it is impolite to say— "schmooze" Sir Denis Mahon; to assure him that he was safe in leaving his paintings to our national museums and galleries. He was and is determined that they should go only to museums and galleries which have free access, and I and other Ministers have been able to assure him that that will continue to be the case. He has accepted, correctly, those assurances, and he has made the bequest to which the noble Viscount referred.
In addition to that, the Secretary of State has announced that Tate Modern at Bankside will have free access for all when it opens. It is probably the most wonderful, largest, new art gallery in this country for the whole of the last century. An additional grant of £5 million is being paid to the Tate Gallery this coming year, and £6 million next year for that purpose. So our commitment has not changed; it is as firm as it ever was.
876
VAT of course is a potential obstacle to extending free access. We understand the concerns that it may limit our future freedom of action and may even threaten the free access already available. We have always been aware of the VAT implications of the free access policy—especially at a time when many national museums and galleries are carrying out major capital developments mainly funded by the National Lottery—and we have continually been in contact with Customs and Excise to try to address any VAT problems.
But this is not an anomaly of VAT—this is VAT. This is what VAT is about. The burden of VAT is intended to fall totally on the final consumer, either private individuals or organisations which are not in business. The admission of people to premises for a payment is a business activity, but free admission is not. Museums which charge for admission are generally in business—some have non-business activities such as free academic research—and they can recover all or nearly all of the VAT they incur. Museums which do not charge for admission, or which have substantial numbers of free admissions, usually have some business activities—such as shops, cafes or special exhibitions—which entitle them to recover some VAT. However, they cannot recover VAT relating to their non-business activities. The additional grants to museums which abandon charges are unlikely fully to off-set the VAT cost. The NACF perceives this as an inducement to museums to charge, while those which offer free admission suffer a heavy financial penalty.
Of course I recognise the concern that the situation is worse because all museums are currently incurring a lot of VAT because of National Lottery capital projects. But it has always been the case that VAT can be included in the grant request to the National Lottery. If the VAT has not been included in the grant request for a project which is liable to VAT without it being recoverable, then the grant request has not been properly made. It is of course true that free admission can mean that some VAT cannot be recovered. This is a complex issue. It depends very much on the museum's individual circumstances and it is subject to negotiation between the museum and the local VAT inspector.
Before leaving the question of lottery grants, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that the figures that he saw in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, are the figures provided for the British Museum. They have not been inspected or verified by Customs and Excise. That is the basis on which they have been given. One noble Lord said that this is a lottery. It is not. The local VAT inspector deals with his local museums and galleries, not because he is a kind of free-standing baron able to negotiate as he thinks fit, but because the needs and circumstances of museums and galleries are different one from the other. Customs and Excise is concerned with equity rather than equality, and it will be directing the approach taken by local officers to ensure that the same basic principles are followed.

877
Let us look at what potential solutions there might be. We could treat non-charging museums as being in business so that they can recover all or most of the VAT they incur. However, in both UK and European Community law business involves making supplies for a consideration; and any change to that would mean amending the sixth directive. To amend the sixth directive I have to say, frankly, is all but impossible at least in the foreseeable future. Only the Commission can propose legislation, so anyone suggesting a change to accommodate museums would need to convince it, first, that there was a problem and, secondly, that there is a solution which is consistent with the basic scheme of the tax. This is not a cascade tax; it is a tax on the ultimate consumer; and, frankly, we are unlikely to overcome the first hurdle.
Another solution is that of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, referred: admission at a reduced cost. Customs and Excise has confirmed that, provided museums make more than a token charge for admission, reduction of the charge should not significantly affect their VAT recovery.
Finally, there is the proposal, the subject of the debate, to include national museums and galleries within Section 33. That is considered to be a quick and easy method for national museums and galleries to recover tax which they cannot otherwise claim. Of course, we are grateful to the National Art Collections Fund for the paper it produced with the help of the Charities Tax Reform Group, and for the approaches it has made to the European Commission.
Let us look at the history of Section 33. It is part of the original 1972 VAT legislation. It allows certain bodies to reclaim tax incurred on their purchases used in carrying out their non-business activity. But apart from exceptions like the BBC which was introduced at the very beginning, this status has been restricted to local authority-type bodies with legal powers directly to precept on local taxation—not local authority museums, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, but local authorities—for all their services. If I said to him that they levied charges and not taxes, I was almost certainly wrong because that is not the implication. This is important because the total amount of VAT refunded in 1999 under Section 33 to local authorities was about £3.4 billion.
What about precepting as a determining factor for inclusion? The criteria for adding new bodies is that they carry out new local authority-type functions and have the power in law directly to precept on local authority funds. Since 1972 it is true that 33 bodies have been added by Treasury order. National museums and galleries cannot precept on local authorities and are unrelated to local authority funding requirements. These long-established rules have been strictly applied to many applications for admission from non-departmental public bodies, a
878
category which includes our national museums and galleries and they have all been rejected. The Charity Tax Review Group has been in negotiation with Customs and Excise and has been firmly told that it cannot be extended to it.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. As regards ITN, the precepting is on Channel 3 providers; it is not on the local authorities. And in the case of the Environment Agency the precepting is not on local authorities. Surely these are the levying of charges and not precepting on local authorities. There are already exceptions, are there not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said that there have been exceptions. They were all hard fought. For the ITC it was introduced at the same time as the BBC.
National museums and galleries simply do not meet the precept levying criteria and if they were admitted it would be difficult to apply a defensible yardstick to prevent entry to other non-departmental bodies. The VAT incurred by non-departmental bodies is about £400 million which is partly offset by central grants and business activity on which input tax can be reclaimed. The tax loss could be in the region of £50 million to £70 million in this area.
In the European context, yes, of course we are aware of the views which have been expressed by the European Commission. We do not dispute that part of the Commission may hold that Section 33 as framed at present is outside the terms of the sixth directive and European Community law does not cover it. But if it were to be considered as part of the law, which might be the case if there were an extension, then the Commission would take infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom. We have known this for a long time, but there is uncertainty to the extent that membership could be extended to the semi-commercial sector that could still prompt the Commission to take infraction action.
As regards setting the precedent—the floodgates argument—I have spoken of the cost regarding charities and the £400 million tax which could be at risk. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and many others said that the cost for the charging of museums and galleries would be £3 million. If we extended that to the non-charging museums and galleries we should be talking about £30 million. In any case, other non-departmental public bodies could well be pressing for similar treatment.
We are not stupid. This is public money. If the money is going out to museums and galleries and is being recovered in the form of VAT, you do not seriously think that the Treasury, Customs and Excise, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have not taken that into account not only in the way in which our VAT laws are framed but also in the way in which the size of grant for the DCMS is framed. A number of noble Lords have spoken as though this were somehow a quick fix. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said that there was no repercussive effect. Of

879
course there is a repercussive effect. If we set targets for public expenditure in this country—and noble Lords opposite who have been Members of government know that I am right about this—in the knowledge that some of our expenditure is gross and sums are recovered in VAT, then we are looking at the net effect on public expenditure; and that is what we publish in our Budget figures. It is the basis on which the allocations in our spending reviews are based. Every noble Lord who has been a Minister must know that to be true
I do not say firmly and finally that there is no prospect of change in Section 33. We shall continue to look for the possibilities of change. I am not saying that there is no possibility that other ways may not be found of improving the funding of museums and galleries. After all, that is the subject of the spending round 2000 which is going on. But I have to say that anyone who thinks that there is a cost-free fix in changing the VAT law is deluding himself.
Noble Lords have done an excellent job for museums and galleries by their determined advocacy of free access and of the worth and means of museums and galleries. That cannot be taken away from them.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to everyone who has spoken today. It has been an informative and lively debate. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his comments and for explaining the Government's position. I am sorry that he is unable to move in our direction. I understand the purpose of Section 33. I see no logical and, with great respect, no legal basis on which to limit it I note that in 1984 when a Labour MP asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Question for Written Answer whether the national museums and galleries should be put on the same footing as local authority museums under this very power, he was told by the Treasury Minister, Barney Hayhoe—now the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe—not that it could not be done but, on the contrary, that no VAT refund was needed because national museums grants were designed to cover VAT. That is patently no longer the cage. The refund is now badly needed, not least in order for the Government to deliver their admirable policy of universal free access. Mr Hayhoe's answer clearly indicates that the Treasury at that time had no intention of declaring this power off limits. Indeed, it is extraordinary that many local authority museums have the benefit of this power, which is denied to their national colleagues.
Are the Government saying that they cannot add national museums to Section 33 or that they do not want to? As there do not seem to be any overwhelming objections, I urge the Government to find the political will to add national museums and galleries to Section 33. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2000
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsrose to move. That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations laid before the House on 8th March be annulled (S.I. 2000/630).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The statutory instruments to which my Prayer relates will have a significant effect both upon those who pay taxes and those who buy TV licences. The order makes three changes in one fell swoop. The TV licence fee has increased from £101 per year to £104 for colour and for black and white by £1, giving the BBC an extra £200 million every year. Free licences for people over the age of 75 will be introduced from 1st November this year; one per household. The third part of the order amends the licence fee concessions available to those in sheltered accommodation.
I make clear from the outset that I do not propose to put this Motion to a vote. One might ask why I tabled it. Looking around the Chamber, which seems dripping with BBC governors and an ex-directorgeneral—not quite an ex-director-general; I beg his pardon, there are a few days yet to go—the noble Lord, Lord Birt, in the Chamber, I begin to wonder why on earth I tabled it. My colleagues in another place last night did not have to face quite such a battery against them on that occasion. However, I hope it will not end up as a battery against what I have to say.
I have three reasons for tabling the Motion. First, quite simply, it was the only way in which this House could have any opportunity to ask the Government questions about changes that are made here by negative instrument and to give the Minister the opportunity to put on record the explanation of the Government for the changes and the thinking behind them.
Secondly, I should like the Minister to give the House an assurance—this might sound a strange thing to say, not least from me—that the BBC will not be required to bear the administrative costs associated with the Government's pre-election give-aways. Thirdly, I want to draw attention to a narrow point which I believe has been missed in another place. The order could, in practice, remove from people over 60 who are currently in sheltered accommodation the right to concessions in certain narrowly defined circumstances. I do not believe that that is what the Government intend and I want to explore that.
I have approached the debate from my viewpoint as a friend of the taxpayer, a friend of the licence fee payer and, I would still say, a friend of the BBC. I shall carry on with that, regardless. It is true that I am a candid friend, but I sent a draft copy of my speech to the BBC last week. I am not too sure how many people had a heart attack, but they are still talking to me—just. I met the head of TV Licensing on Monday. I am grateful to him for his detailed and patient answering

881
of my questions. Noble Lords will be aware that TV Licensing is, in a sense, a brand name of the BBC, but it is a wholly-owned subsidiary.
We on these Benches recognise the achievements of the BBC and its importance in setting the benchmark of quality in national and international broadcasting. The BBC has made, and I hope it will continue to make, a major contribution to the cultural life of the nation. However, as noble Lords are all aware, the broadcasting world is changing rapidly. Already more than 3 million households have access to multichannel digital television. That explosion of choice raises fundamental questions about the current and future role of the BBC and, necessarily, about its funding.
Perhaps there are good reasons for letting the BBC now break the existing agreement that was intended, when made, to give it scope to develop the digital services. I would simply maintain that when the Secretary of State made his Statement in another place, it was he who failed to make that case effectively. Those who feel tonight that this will be a bash at the BBC's speech will find that it is not quite that. Perhaps others might want to do that in future debates we have on broadcasting. I hope that we have the opportunity to explore the role of public service broadcasters in general during the course of this coming year in our Wednesday debates.
I have questions about the operation of Parts 2 and 3 of the order, if I may call them that. I refer to the parts which affect the free licences for the over-75s and the extension of concessions, or so it would appear, to those in sheltered accommodation. I turn first to the free licences which will be available to the over-75s. I was intrigued to note that when the Secretary of State made his Statement in another place he said that the concession would be made provided that primary legislation can be passed to enable it to be made. We now find that that change is to be effected by secondary legislation. What advice did the Government receive between 21st February this year when the Statement was made and 8th March when this instrument was laid to change their minds about the need for primary legislation to effect the change?
Can the Minister confirm that some primary legislation may still be needed in order to give the BBC full access to all our national insurance information—the numbers held for us by the DSS at Newcastle—so that those who claim a free licence can have that claim verified?
The heart of my questions are: what are the financial implications of the change for both the Treasury and the BBC? How has the Treasury calculated the £300 million which the Secretary of State announced would be paid every year to the BBC as compensation for the loss in income for the sale of those licences to the over-75s? Is £300 million really an accurate figure or is it, indeed, as I have been led to believe by advice, closer to £340 million in the first year and about the same thereafter?
882
Is the estimate of the compensation to be paid linked to the number of those who are currently over 75 who are estimated to hold a licence? Are such figures available? How many people have a licence over 75? Or is that compensation amount linked to the number of households that the Government expect to make a claim to have a 75 year-old living with them after 1st November this year? Let us suppose that my mother came to live with me in my household. As she is 86, I would be able to transfer my licence fee into her name and obtain a free licence for my household.
I note that the compensation is strictly for the amount of free licences issued. There is the question of the cost of administration. Such costs are excluded from the estimate of £300 million, if that, given by the Secretary of State. Can the Minister confirm that the estimated cost of the work to be carried out by TV Licensing is about £22 million in the first year and about £8 million to £10 million thereafter? They will be required this year to write to every single household in the land to inform those who are over 75 about the scheme and explain how it operates. They must verify the claims and police the system thereafter to ensure there is no fraud. That is their job. Can the Minister assure the House that the Treasury will pick up the bill for all that work, both this year and in ensuing years?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The taxpayer!
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the Minister remind me, from a sedentary position, that when we talk about the Treasury paying we are talking about each and every one of us paying. Indeed, pensioners between the ages of 65 and 75 will pay more for their TV licence, not receive a free licence and, if they are a taxpayer, still pay even more for the administration costs.
My question is simple: will the taxpayers, through the Treasury, bear that cost or will the BBC be expected to make further savings or dip into the money it has been given to provide for its digital expansion? Will it have to do that to pay for the administration costs? I hope that that would not be the case.
There are some complexities in the way the free TV licence will operate. For example, can the Minister confirm that those who are over 75 must still apply for and hold a licence, even though it is free? What happens if somebody over 75 fails to apply for a licence or, having applied for it, fails to complete it and send it in? If detected, can the Minister confirm what I believe to be the case; that is, that over-75 year-olds will still be subject to prosecution? I have this ghastly vision of the first ever case of the TV licensing people having no choice but to prosecute somebody aged 90 because that person does not have a TV licence, even though the licence is free. I see that as a potential bureaucratic nightmare.

883
Finally, I turn to the third change made by the order; the ARC system—the licensing system which covers those in sheltered accommodation. Last night, when this order was taken in another place, the Minister stated at col. 301 of the Official Report, that this provision,
"will have the additional benefit of safeguarding the entitlement to the concession of residents in sheltered housing schemes with male residents aged between 60 and 64".
I fully acknowledge what the Government are trying to achieve. But I have been advised by TV Licensing that the way in which the order is worded introduces a new and unwelcome anomaly that in practice could remove the right to hold concessionary licences from those people over 60 who live in sheltered accommodation. It works like this.
As the situation currently exists, if I am living in sheltered accommodation and am just over 60 and there is a gentleman living in that sheltered accommodation between the ages of 60 and 65, because he is not of pensionable age h e should in theory knock me out from having access to concessionary licences. TV Licensing has been exercising a discretion to ignore the presence of that man and therefore allow the concessionary licences to apply. At times it has been taken to court by bodies which say that if it exercises discretion in that case, it should exercise it in others. I am sure TV Licensing would welcome the fact that this change means it is not in the invidious position of having to decide whether or not to exercise discretion.
I can therefore see the logic behind what the Government are trying to achieve. It looks as though the BBC would be OK and people in sheltered accommodation would be in an acceptable position. But I am advised by TV Licensing that, if a man aged between the magic ages of 60 and 65, lives in sheltered accommodation and works over 15 hours a week—that means he car: no longer be calculated as retired—this order will abolish the right of everybody else in that sheltered accommodation to hold concessionary licences. Noble Lords will be aware that there are several good practice employers like B&Q who actively recruit older workers. It is therefore possible that the scenario I described could occur.
I contacted Age Concern to discuss this matter and found that it was not aware of this potential anomaly. Matters came to a head so late because I only saw TV Licensing on Monday and it has not been possible to follow it through. But I undertake to try to do so. None of us want this to occur. I am seeking from the Government an answer as to whether or not they are aware of this development and this advice from TV Licensing. Whatever is the position, will they undertake to look at the situation urgently after the order goes through, as go through it will, so that, if there is a potential anomaly, we are able to put it right on a future occasion?
I come back in a rather elliptical way to where I began a long while ago—this is a complex order—to say that, of course, this is a statutory instrument and as such it cannot be amended. So even if there is fault in it, it must go through. I commend the Prayer to the House.
884
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations laid before the House on 8th March be annulled (S.I. 2000/630).—(Baroness Anelay of St Johns.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, having taken advice from the table I should declare an interest in that a company with which I am associated under Category 2 of the Register of Members' Interests has worked for the BBC. I am also President of the British Radio and Electronic Equipment Manufacturers' Association (BREMA). Both those interests are registered in the appropriate fashion.
Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I sometimes wonder whether the Government do not put their proposals on concessions to pensioners on the old "bike shed" process of getting material through council budgets. The council always used to put in the cost of repainting the bike shed, knowing that that would dominate the ensuing debate and the rest of the council budget would go through on the nod. I dipped into last night's debate in the Commons and a lot of attention was paid to these concessions to pensioners. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, glaring at me. That in no way implies that it is not a welcome concession to pensioners and one that is not appreciated. However, it is away from the main and welcome thrust of this order; that is, the increase in licence fee. Indeed, if the noble Baroness had pressed her Prayer this evening we would resolutely have voted against it.
It is also a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Birt, in his place. I am not sure he has the same brooding presence that Lord Reith must once have had in this Chamber. But he brings considerable experience to our deliberations.
The noble Baroness does not need to apologise for bringing this Prayer before the House. As she said, it gives us an opportunity to air a number of points in relation to the Government's decision on the licence fee. The way that she put forward her views was a welcome change to what was once the strident anti-BBC rhetoric which used to come from the Conservative Benches. The BBC needs friends and, as she put it, it needs candid friends.
The licence fee has always been politically sensitive. I was first brought into this game when the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, asked me, as his political adviser in Number 10, to keep an eye on what the Home Office was up to in relation to the licence fee in the late 1970s. The idea that the licence fee is a great imposition has been slightly changed with the coming of subscription television. We now see what a bargain the licence fee is compared with that asked by cable or satellite subscription services.
I am glad also that the noble Baroness did not trot out the canard that the licence fee is a poll tax. I believe that by each person paying a licence fee we spread the cost of our public service broadcasting in a way that makes quality public service broadcasting available to all. That is something that should be welcomed by all.

885
For that reason I welcome the new settlement. It provides new resources and gives the BBC a vote of confidence which enables it to plan ahead at least until the review of the charter. The way that the Government and the BBC have come to this agreement is welcome. It re-establishes BBC1 as the BBC's flagship channel. It writes in a commitment to education, to exploring the world of interactivity and to enhancing services to the devolved nations and regions of the UK. At the same time it places pretty heavy burdens on the BBC to find further cost and efficiency savings.
The Secretary of State has declared his intention to implement independent reviews of BBC news services, starting with News 24. I have no objection to such a review as long as it is in the context that if the BBC is to remain at the forefront of news coverage it should be as part of a 24-hour news service. There has been much sniping at News 24, but Sky still has minute audiences for its news service. I believe that Mr Murdoch well realises that an effective 24-hour news service is not only a benefit in itself but a useful political calling card. CNN spent many years establishing itself as a 24-hour service. ITN is now moving in that direction. I am quite willing—as I am sure is the BBC—to see News 24 examined. I am quite sure that News 24 is capable of improvement. However, we should not allow News 24 to be sabotaged by critics who have vested commercial interests in their criticism.
We have come to the end of a 12-year battle over the future of the BBC. I hope that the remarks of the noble Baroness signalled that. Almost throughout the 1990s questions were raised as to whether we wanted the BBC; whether it should be split up; or whether it should be privatised. I believe that the national consensus is that we want to retain the BBC. If we are of a mind to retain the BBC, we must give it the resources to do the job that we want it to do. I very much welcomed the statement of the Secretary of State that,
"the BBC should provide a strong and distinctive schedule of benchmark quality programmes on all its services and should drive the take-up of new digital and on-line services. A strong BBC is crucial in ensuring that everyone can have access to information, news, education and current affairs, using efficient modern methods".
I believe that that is a statement of intent, a mission statement, which we can all support.
The BBC has made a unique contribution to the cultural life of this country in the 20th century. I believe that in the new century it is essential to the health of our democracy. Its cultural role is essential as our values are constantly challenged by the dominance of American media. As was pointed out in the agreement with the BBC, its political role has increased in importance with regional diversity. We need the BBC to bring us together as a nation. I am convinced that, like democracy, the licence fee is a bad system of funding until you compare it with all the alternatives. As one of the alternatives which was rejected, I thought that the Davies committee's
886
solution of a digital levy was a bad solution. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, agrees with me because at one time he was for the digital levy and, at another time, against it. That was a good each-way bet which meant that he was on the winning side in the end!
The problem with the digital levy is that it is a catch-22 situation. We need a successful switch to digital to drive forward the digital revolution, yet the digital levy would have made people less keen to switch. We must therefore promote free-to-air digital. I know that the Secretary of State has promised a campaign on free-to-air digital. One wonders when we shall see that. However, there is a danger. We see at the moment what I would call predatory subsidy—the offering of so-called "free" set-top boxes which lures viewers into what is termed "walled gardens". Once they enter the subscription market, they are trapped. We want interoperability and a free-to-air offer, not just because that gives choice to the viewer but also—here I declare my BREMA interest—because it gives a good base for a manufacturing industry in which Britain is at the moment in the lead.
I hope that the Government will campaign hard on the free-to-air offer. They have shown commendable courage in ignoring the vandals who wish to dismember the BBC and they have supported higher standards. On that basis the BBC should be able to go forward with confidence.
A demonstration of that confidence is the BBC talent initiative. The BBC should be looking for new performing, creative and technical talent. Quite frankly, I do not think that it should worry about so-called "star performers" being poached. They rarely twinkle quite so brightly once they are away from the BBC. The BBC has constantly shown its capacity to find new talent and to bring on new stars.
There are two mantras worth preserving: first, the one that the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, used in his White Paper over a decade ago; namely, that we must have quality, diversity and choice for British broadcasting. The best way to achieve that is through a well funded BBC that can operate in all centres of technology and not be restricted by either lack of funding or by attempts by commercial interests to undermine its initiatives. The BBC still has that old Reithian objective to entertain, educate and inform. I believe that that is as important as ever to the health of the nation.
8 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was right to point out that there is a veritable phalanx of "BBC types" in the Chamber tonight. I particularly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I declare an interest as a vice chairman of the BBC and also as the daughter of a blind mother over 75 years-old.
There are three questions on which we might legitimately dwell tonight. The first is the question that is perhaps central to the licence fee increase; namely, is an increase in the licence fee justified? I am always slightly bemused when that question arises because if

887
you go anywhere outside these islands and ask people whether the BBC is a good thing, you hear paeans of praise heaped upon it. People are in no doubt whatsoever as to the value of the BBC. People abroad often think that we are rather mad to question that. It is now the second most recognised global brand after Coca-Cola. The BBC is promoting Britain right across the globe.
Back here in the UK the BBC fulfils a clear and distinctive public service role. Any doubt expressed about that needs to be closely examined. The smokescreen of saying that there is uncertainty over the BBC's public service role in the digital age is indeed a smokescreen. I believe that the BBC will continue to be a benchmark for quality and for influencing the whole of the broadcast ecology. It will continue to provide universality of access irrespective of ability to pay when more and more broadcasting is on a pay-perview or subscription basis.
At the end of the day, it cannot be denied that the BBC offers a bargain. Viewers receive two analogue television channels, four digital television channels, five national radio stations, a range of local radio stations and the biggest on-line content site in Europe, with over 150 m Ilion page impressions every month. That represents e bargain now; and it will represent an even bigger bargain in the future. Alongside an increase in the licence fee, there is an agreement with government to produce over £1 billion in internal savings and to redirect the maximum amount of resources to programme-making, and there is a clear package of new developments spanning creativity, citizenship, learning and services for the devolved nations as part of the UK. People receive all that for less than the price of a packet of crisps a day—so it is a veritable bargain. I believe that the increase in the licence fee can be justified to the man in the street.
The second issue that is worth touching on briefly is the vexed question of concessions. Who should receive concessions is a decision for government. We have seen one major benefit this year for which we must be thankful; namely, the free licence for those over 75. That reduces to 130,000 those who are subject to the other, much vexed, concessionary licence schemes, in relation to which there are always anomalies and problems of boundaries.
A third issue concerned me which has not been touched on in the debate. It is the question of whether there is a risk to the independence of the BBC if 13 per cent of its licence fee income comes direct from a government department. I hope that the concessionary schemes have been designed specifically to ensure that the BBC's independence will not be eroded. The strong principle will remain that each household must still have a licence; the only difference will lie in how the cost is met—by the DSS or the individual. DSS payments will no: come from a capped budget subject to spending review control. The only question is whether the household will pay directly for the licence or whether the payment will be made automatically by the DSS. I hope that that goes some way to reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who expressed concerns about whether the BBC will be faced with a
888
shortfall if the sum currently predicted were not to be met. It will indeed be met. Over the past few months I have felt more reassured that the new system of concessions will not erode the independence of the BBC. The BBC guards its independence ruggedly, and intends to remain independent while making sure that it receives and collects a proper payment for the services that it provides, to a high standard, to each household.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, I, too, begin by declaring an interest. I am the "other half' of that "battery" of governors referred to by my noble friend Lady Anelay. I am not sure that, between us, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and I could man a battery very satisfactorily. However, I share my noble friend's disappointment that we form so high a proportion of those who are present for this debate. My noble friend has performed a great service in providing an occasion for the discussion of this important set of issues. I should like to assure her that the guns in my battery are certainly not trained towards her. A candid friend—and I stress the word "candid"—is exactly what the BBC needs.
I commend the Government on providing the BBC with security of funding in the licence fee settlement for a sufficient period of time to enable it to evolve something that presents extreme difficulty; namely, a strategy for public service broadcasting of the quality that Britain has come to expect from the BBC in a world that is changing extremely fast technologically. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Birt, on all he did to help the BBC think its way through to that new world at the same time as focusing on the programming that it was presenting in the old one.
I also commend my noble friend for raising a number of issues relating to concessionary licence fees. It is important that the Government are given this opportunity to respond to the questions that she has raised. If the Minister will forgive me saying so—and if my friends in the Treasury will forgive me—it would be a not unfamiliar Treasury trick to allow some of the cost to trickle back on to the BBC. That would, of course, be to the disbenefit of all licence fee payers. I am sure the Minister will provide satisfactory answers to the questions raised by my noble friend. I conclude by again congratulating her on raising them.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I intervene briefly simply to spare the embarrassment of the Board of Governors of the BBC, who feel that they may be monopolising the debate! I was a member of the committee that examined BBC funding. The committee was unanimous in its feeling that the BBC should be given more funding. Any body which depends on an RPI-based settlement needs that settlement re-examined between five and 10 years in the period of funding because it inevitably gets out of kilter with what is happening in the real world.
I disagreed with my colleagues on the committee who advocated a digital licence fee. I suggested that the current agreement, which was meant to be RPI-minus

889
for the next two years, should be broken and restored to an RPI-plus basis. My principal reason was to guarantee the BBC extra funding. The Government have gone marginally further than I would have done and the settlement is more generous than I suggested. I do not quarrel with that—I would rather err on the side of generosity to the BBC than the other way.
My main argument against a digital licence fee—and I am glad the Government have rejected the idea—was that the prospect had united every other broadcaster against the BBC in a way that I have not seen in 40 years in broadcasting. That would have posed grave dangers for the survival of the licence fee in 2006. I hope that it will survive. It is a distinctive form of funding and one which should be retained.
A further point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was whether there was a danger to the BBC's independence from the direct government funding of licences for pensioners over the age of 75. The situation would have been even worse had the Government done nothing and left the BBC as a kind of surrogate Department of Social Security and the licence fee as an form of extra taxation that did not count as taxation. It is much better that the Department of Social Security should fund benefits where it believes that they should be funded. It should not be part of the BBC's job to do that.
Thirdly, it is important to distinguish public service broadcasting from public funding—a point that has not been touched on so far. The triumph of broadcasting in this country under successive governments is that public service broadcasting has extended across the ITV network. One need only look to the fact that the current chairman of the BBC, the most recently retired director-general, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and his successor, Mr Greg Dyke, have all emanated from London Weekend Television. That suggests that, unless they underwent a road to Damascus conversion during the taxi ride from one building to another, public service principles imbue traditional commercial broadcasting in this country as well. It is vitally important that we preserve that. Frankly, the 1990 Act did immense damage to ITV, some of which is now becoming apparent in a reduction in the quality of quite a lot of the programmes.
However, it is important that there should not be an automatic assumption that, if there is to be public service broadcasting, it can be provided only by the BBC. If the Secretary of State decides, for example, that he wants a new service to be a public service, it may well be that it should then be open to the ITNs of this world to go for that as well as the BBC. That will produce a healthier broadcasting ecology. If we confine public service broadcasting to the BBC and let the rest run not, we shall eventually end up with the equivalent of the public service channels in the United States, which attract a tiny minority audience. We need public service broadcasting across the spectrum so far as is possible.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have never played this game before and do not know the rules about how the Government Front Bench should respond to a Prayer to annul an order. Apart from expressing regret that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, did not seize the opportunity to make an impromptu maiden speech—he would have been within his rights to do so—I shall précis the long speech that I have before me in praise of the BBC and then answer the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I agree with virtually everything that has been said by other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I make one exception. I believe that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about interoperability and other matters fall outside the scope of the order.
In so far as all noble Lords have spoken about the role of the BBC, the importance of security of funding and the licence fee, and have said how much they welcome the decision that has been taken, I do not believe that there is much point in repeating in detail the speech which was made last night in another place. The first paragraph of my speech states that the Government are committed to the continued role of the BBC as the United Kingdom's principal—not the only—public service broadcaster. I emphasise those words for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Gordon. My noble friend is quite right that public service broadcasting principles should apply to all broadcasting, not just to the BBC. The paragraph goes on to say that the BBC's central role is the provision of free access to its public service channels with a high standard of information, news, education and current affairs programmes.
The next paragraph of my speech states that of all the options for funding the corporation the current television licence fee has distinct advantages: in other words, it is probably very bad but it is better than all the alternatives, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally said. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg: we thought that it was important to provide sustainable funding up to the end of the Royal Charter at the end of 2006 in the expectation that, if that policy was successful, it would lead to continued stability of funding thereafter. We appointed Gavyn Davies to chair an independent review panel which came to the conclusion that the licence fee, with modifications, was the correct way forward. We have taken account of the report of the panel and also commissioned a review of the BBC's financial projections by independent consultants to assist our decisions on finance and an analysis by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
We have not adopted all the proposals of the review panel. For the reasons that have been well expressed, we have rejected the view that a digital licence supplement is an appropriate alternative or addition, but we have agreed with the panel that additional funding should come in the first instance from self-help. Therefore, we have challenged the BBC to help itself by efficiency savings, partnerships, joint ventures, reductions in bureaucracy and other means. We have set a target of £490 million by 2006/07 over and above the £600 million which the BBC has itself estimated. We recognise that that is a more demanding

891
target than that set by the Davies panel. On that basis, we have decided to provide the required additional licence fee funding via annual increases of 1.5 per cent over RPI from April this year through to 2006.
We have also accepted the general thrust of the review panel's recommendations about transparency, fair trading and accountability. We shall institute procedures for the introduction of new services which will include an opportunity for public consultation before the Secretary of State reaches decisions on proposed new services. There will also be a programme of reviews of all the current BBC digital services—"News 24", "Choice", "Knowledge" and "Parliament"—to ensure that they achieve their stated purpose. We de not expect the licence fee to fund services such as dedicated film and sport channels where there is no distinct and separate public service remit.
We shall commission independent scrutinies of the BBC's fair trading policies and financial reporting and publish the results. As to concessions, we have already gone beyond the Davies recommendations with the announcement of free licences for those over 75. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked me why the Government had changed their view about the means by which that should be achieved. Free television licences can be introduced under the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, as amended. However, an amendment to the BBC's agreement with the Secretary of State will be required to enable the Department of Social Security to make payments to the BBC to cover the cost of free television licences. That will be done by affirmative resolution.
The Government will also bring forward primary legislation to enable the Department of Social Security to provide information to the BBC. That will assist in the efficient administration of the scheme and, in most cases, enable the application procedures to be greatly simplified. Without going into the history of how these decisions have been arrived at, I can say only that they have been taken on the advice of the highest possible authorities. The cost to the taxpayer of free licences will be approximately £368 million. The administration cost will be £24.3 million, and the ongoing costs are expected to be £10 million in the first year and £8 million per annum thereafter. All of those costs will be borne by public funds, not the BBC.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about those over 75 who applied for licences. That question has already been dealt with by my noble friend Lady Young. The answer is that all households will need a licence. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Young is reassured that that will help to preserve the independence of the BBC's funding. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked me about the removal of the right to a free television licence where a man in sheltered accommodation aged between 60 and 64 worked more than 15 hours a week. I do not know the answer to that question. The noble Baroness has apparently been given that question by the BBC's licensing unit. It would have been helpful if it had given the department its opinion before the order was framed but it did not do so. That matter must be
892
investigated. I shall provide an answer to the noble Baroness and copy it to all those who have taken part in the debate.
I do not believe that it is for me to defend the order any more than I have. The basis on which the Prayer to annul is made is very limited. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. As he points out, the basis of the Prayer is narrow. I assure the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that I do not see the roles of the BBC coming to an end; they are just beginning. When the BBC has a strong and growing online system, is becoming an Internet service provider and goes into realms that neither it nor any of the users of these services could have expected of any broadcaster, we shall continue to ask questions as to what the role of a public service broadcaster, or any broadcaster, should be. I believe that those matters fall within the remit of a debate, not a Prayer to annul. Therefore, I have sought to restrict my remarks very closely. I am grateful to the Minister for addressing himself to the questions that I posed. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions etc.) Order 2000
8.20 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in preparing for Scottish devolution, it was recognised that there would be some UK or GB-wide public bodies with a remit which includes responsibility for devolved matters in Scotland. Section 88 of the Scotland Act provides the mechanism to designate such public bodies as "cross-border public authorities". The Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Specification) Order 1999 designated 65 public bodies as cross-border public authorities, including the British Library Board, Theatres Trust and the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund.
Designation as a cross-border public authority has the effect that ministerial functions in relation to the body do not transfer automatically to Scottish Ministers, as they would for bodies operating wholly in a devolved area. Instead, the Scottish Ministers have a right to be consulted on all appointments to the body and on the exercise of any functions in relation to the body which might affect devolved matters.
But these default arrangements are not suitable for every cross-border public authority, so Section 89 of the Scotland Act allows arrangements to be tailor-made for a particular body. This is the purpose of the present order in relation to the appointment and, in certain cases, removal of members of the British

893
Library Board, trustees of the Theatres Trust, and trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. For these bodies, UK and Scottish Ministers have agreed that it is not necessary to consult on the appointment or removal of every trustee or member. The order ensures that Scottish interests are properly represented. In effect, it re-establishes the pre-devolution position on appointment issues, which was a mixture of statutory and voluntary arrangements.
All the bodies affected by this order have been consulted. They all support the provisions. Indeed, Section 89(3) of the Scotland Act provides that no recommendation shall be made to make an order unless the cross-border authorities have been consulted. The order is also in line with the concordat between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Scottish Executive covering consultation arrangements on all appointments of interest to the Scottish Executive.
The order cannot be recommended to Her Majesty unless it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, and by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament. The order was agreed in another place on 20th March and approved yesterday by a committee of the Scottish Parliament. Formal approval of the order by the Scottish Parliament will be, presumably, on 6th April. This is the second such order. The first was approved last year and covered 30 cross-border public authorities.
Let me deal briefly with each of the three public bodies concerned. The British Library is the national library of the United Kingdom and the foremost centre for reference, study and bibliographical and other information services for both science and the humanities. The remit of the Theatres Trust UK is,
"to promote the better protection of theatres for the benefit of the nation".
Local authorities are required to consult the trust on planning applications affecting land on which there is a theatre. The trust also provides advice on theatre buildings to grant-making bodies, including lottery bodies. I am confident that in the case of both public bodies Scottish interests will be fully represented in their work across the United Kingdom.
For the British Library and Theatres Trust, appointments are made by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and Scottish Ministers will be consulted on one member of the British Library's Board and one member of the Theatres Trust, who, in the view of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport,
"appears to him to have special knowledge of Scotland".
The National Heritage Memorial Fund is a fund of last resort that has the powers to provide financial assistance towards the acquisition, maintenance and preservation of buildings, lands, works of art and other objects or structures of importance to the national heritage. The NHMF also administers the Heritage Lottery Fund that distributes money generated by the National Lottery. Both the NHMF and the HLF have a remit that is UK-wide.
894
Appointments to the NHMF are made by the Prime Minister on advice from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Prime Minister will consult Scottish Ministers on the appointment of the chairman and however many persons with Scottish connections—"by residence or otherwise"—are normally trustees at any one time. In Section 1 of the National Heritage Act 1980, consultation on the appointment of the chairman is required to take place with what are now the devolved administrations.
In addition, the Prime Minister is required to consult Scottish Ministers on the termination on grounds of misconduct of appointment of the chairman and any trustees with Scottish connections. Again, I am confident that Scottish interests will be fully represented in the work of the NHMF and the HLF across the United Kingdom.
The order makes sensible provision to ensure that these cross-border public authorities can continue to operate with an appropriate input and control for the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. The pre-devolution arrangements worked well, and UK and Scottish Ministers are happy to have these reestablished as set out in the order.
I can confirm that the order complies with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving an explanation to the House, one that is far easier to understand than that given in another place. I trawled through the Official Report of proceedings there; I read twice, thrice and still felt that I had made no headway at all, but eventually got there. Certainly, I feel that the explanation given to this House was a lot more helpful.
In effect, we are asked to accept that this order provides a pragmatic answer to the question of how much consultation with Scottish Ministers is enough to maintain that fair balance between a representation of Scottish views about appointments and the delay that would be caused by seeking views on each and every appointment to bodies that represent the whole of Britain. We, on these Benches, would not oppose the making of the order and would accept that its purpose is to achieve that fair balance. The Minister has referred to the fact that consultation has taken place. I have spoken to two of the bodies concerned, and they reflect that and feel that they were able to put their views satisfactorily.
When the order was taken in another place, my honourable friend Mr Grieve sought assurances from the Minister with regard to the consultation upon the removal of members from the British Library Board and the Theatres Trust. I would be grateful if the Minister would repeat the assurances given in another place by his honourable friend Mr Howarth that in practice the Government would consult on the removal of appointees from both bodies.

895
I have two questions that were not fully covered during the debate in another place. The first relates to the issue of what is special knowledge of Scotland. The appointment of one member to each of the two bodies—the British Library Board and the Theatres Trust—will be made by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport after consultation with Scottish Minister s. The appointee will be a person who appears to haw "special knowledge of Scotland". Does that mean that the individual could be English—or any other nationality—living in England, but who has, say, a very detailed, academic knowledge of Scotland? What does the Government have in mind as to the meaning of "special knowledge of Scotland"?
My second question is with regard to the matter of a concordat that was mentioned in the debate in another place. In those discussions the Minister said that the order is in line with the separate discussions that the DCMS had with the Scottish Executive on an agreed concordat covering consultation arrangements on all appointments of interest to the Scottish Executive. Were those discussions only with the relevant Minister, Rhone Brankin, or were they widened to include other members of the executive?
With reference to the concordat, perhaps the nub of the issue is: has that been published? Is it in the public domain in any way?
Will any further orders be necessary for other culture, media and sport bodies under the Scotland Act 1998? The Library could not assist me on this point: will any comparable orders be required under the Government of Wales Act? We do not oppose the making of the order.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response to the order. I shall answer her questions as quickly and as fully as I can. But I do not think I can answer all of her questions in the time available.
Yes, the noble Baroness is right. The procedures for the removal of trustees of the British Library and the Theatres Trust are not set out in the order. They are for the National Heritage Memorial Fund, because that is appropriate in terms of its constitution. The procedures are informal and have been agreed. They appear to be satisfactory to all concerned.
The noble Baroness asked about "special knowledge". There is no such thing as English or Scottish nationality. We are all citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; at least, that is what my passport says. One could have someone on, for example, the Theatres Trust who is a director of a theatre in Edinburgh. His or her appointment may be up for renewal, by which time he or she has gone to direct a theatre in Leeds. It would be quite stupid to take it away because by that time he or she was living south of the Border. We wanted a little flexibility. That is why we put it in terms of "special knowledge" rather than in terms of residence or of nationality.
The noble Baroness asked about the concordat. I do not think it is particularly appropriate for me to say which Minister> of the Scottish Executive were
896
involved in the discussions. The Scottish Executive has its own ways, which are none of our business, for deciding who takes responsibility for decisions. If I say to the noble Baroness that the executive observed its proper procedures and is satisfied with the results, that is as far as I need go. I do not know whether it was published, or whether more are needed, or whether it applies to Wales, but I shall write to the noble Baroness on those points.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Official Listing of Securities (Change of Competent Authority) Regulations 2000
8.32 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st March be approved [12th Report from the Joint committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, can now leave. The purpose of the regulations is to transfer the function of UK competent authority for listing from the London Stock Exchange to the Financial Services Authority. The intention is that the transfer should take place on 1st May.
The future framework of official listing is dealt with in Part VI of the Financial Services and Markets Bill which your Lordships considered on Tuesday 21st March. The competent authority for listing is named in that Bill as the Financial Services Authority.
As I made clear when moving amendments to the Bill last Tuesday, the competent authority for listing performs a number of functions. Principally, it is responsible for admitting securities to the official list and making and enforcing the listing rules which govern both the admission of securities to the official list and the ongoing responsibilities of issuers of such securities. The requirement to have a competent authority and a number of the requirements which issuers of officially listed securities have to meet are laid down in the various European Community directives dealing with official listing.
The Stock Exchange has been the UK's competent authority since the concept was first introduced into UK law in 1984. The decision to make the transfer in no way reflects dissatisfaction with the past performance of the Exchange. But in the light of the Exchange's decision to demutualise, it is no longer appropriate for it to continue to exercise the competent authority function. Indeed, the Exchange itself suggested that that would be inappropriate. A demutualised Stock Exchange will be a for-profit organisation. I could go further and say that, almost certainly, it will be profitable. We consider that it would create the possibility, or at least the perception, of conflicts of interest for the statutory functions of the competent authority to be exercised by a commercial for-profit company, particularly against the background of increasing competition between stock exchanges, including new entrants to the UK market such as Nasdaq Europe and Jiway.

897
We have decided to effect the transfer initially by means of regulations made under the European Communities Act, rather than wait for the enactment and implementation of the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Indeed. I gave notice of that in debate on Tuesday of last week. There are two main reasons for this. First, it is clearly in the interests of all concerned that the transfer of responsibilities should be as smooth and seamless as possible. The transfer involves not just legislative powers but staff, IT systems, financial issues and so on. Using regulations enables us to specify in advance a particular date which assists the planning process.
Secondly, against the backdrop of the London Stock Exchange's demutualisation process, it is desirable to make the transfer as soon as possible. It would be unsatisfactory, for the Exchange as well as others, to leave it with the competent authority function for a significant period after it has been formally demutualised. Hence we consider it best to make the transfer using the powers under the European Communities Act, and 1st May is the earliest feasible date.
The effect of the regulations will be that the FSA will inherit the current functions, rights and obligations of the Exchange in its capacity as competent authority. The regulations also make transitional provisions to carry forward existing listings and listing rules and anything done or in train at the time of the transfer. Provision is included for the transfer of staff in the Exchange's listing department to the FSA.
There is one regulation to which I draw specific attention. Although the transfer is intended to take place on 1st May, Regulation 8 provides that the FSA should be able to make listing rules as soon as the regulations, once they have been agreed by both Houses, are made. The purpose of including this provision is to enable the FSA to bring the new listing rules and revocations of old listing rules into force immediately on 1st May when the transfer of functions takes effect. Certain limited changes to the listing rules are necessary to reflect the separation of admission to the official list and admission to trading on the London Stock Exchange after the FSA becomes the competent authority. In the absence of Regulation 8, there might be doubt about the FSA's powers to prepare new rules in advance and an undesirable hiatus between the transfer of functions and the new listing rules taking effect.
The Exchange, the FSA and the Treasury are all working to ensure that the transfer occurs as smoothly as possible with no loss of effectiveness for the competent authority. The draft regulations are a necessary part of the process. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the regulations. Indeed, as the noble Lord has reminded us, we covered a fair amount of the ground in some detail during our third day in Committee on the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Accordingly, I do not propose to trespass on the fine print of our ongoing scrutiny of that measure. It is enough to say that we look forward to topping and tailing Part VI when the Government table the additional amendments that the Minister advised us would be forthcoming at Report.
We on these Benches take the point, made again by the Minister tonight, that the London Stock Exchange itself does not feel it appropriate that it should continue to be the competent authority for listing because of its recent decision to demutualise. It is my interpretation that the regulations and, to an extent, their relative urgency arise in very great measure from that. While conceding that it is not immediately of relevance today, we do have reservations about the FSA being charged with two competing roles: first, to regulate financial services and markets, and, secondly, to perform the market role of maintaining the competent listing authority. Indeed, this whole issue—the question of who regulates the regulator—has been a persistent theme of our scrutiny of the Bill. No doubt that will continue.
However, for the purposes of today's proceedings, we recognise that it is important that the function of the competent authority should continue—I use the same phrase as the Minister—in as smooth and seamless a way as possible. We can therefore accept the transference of these responsibilities to the FSA.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his welcome for the regulations. He was admirably brief but he said more than the Opposition Front Bench said when I was moving the amendment in Committee. The only other intervention was from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I certainly take his point. We shall have to have a number of additional amendments. That will provide an opportunity for any noble Lords who are interested to take part in debate on any technical issues which may arise at Report stage.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tax Credits Up-rating Order 2000
8.40 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this order which follows our first annual review of the rates and thresholds of working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit, which we introduced in October last year.
When we came into government, we found 4.5 million adults living in households where no one worked; one in three children living in poverty; and nearly one in five children growing up in families without work.

899
Too often in the past, people, including the disabled, faced alarming reemployment and poverty traps. If they tried to work, they found that they were better off staying on benefits. If they tried to find decent childcare, they found that very little was available and that what there was they could not afford. If they overcame those obstacles and started work, they often found that it just did not pay them to try to better their situation by taking on more hours or more responsibility. They were caught in a poverty trap because they saw so little of the extra money that they earned.
Working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit are at the heart of this Government's strategy to make work pay and to tackle poverty. They are targeting extra support to those who need it. Already, only five months after the launch of the new tax credits, more than 3 million people have called the tax credit response and helplines; more than 1 million people have submitted applications; and more than 700,000 tax credit awards have been made. Already, more than 1 million families are receiving working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit, or are in transition from family credit and disability working allowance.
The order increases the rates and thresholds of working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit from 11th April 2000 1.6 per cent in line with the increase in the Rossi index (the index which is broadly in line with the Retail Prices Index, less certain housing costs).
In addition, in order to fulfil a commitment made in the Budget of 1999, it increases the child credit for under-11s by an extra £1.10 over and above the indexation, to align it with the child credit for 11 to
900
16 year-olds. These increases will boost the incomes of around 1.4 million low income working families and disabled people who work.
Perhaps I may explain in a little more detail. The order increases the amount of credits for an adult, child or young person, including the extra 30-hour tax credit, which a family gets when one earner works at least 30 hours a week. These credits determine the maximum working families' tax credit or the maximum disabled person's tax credit available. The order also increases the income threshold for working families' tax credit and the thresholds for disabled person's tax credit. The thresholds, or applicable amounts, are the levels over and above which income begins to taper away the maximum award of the tax credits.
Following the transfer of functions under the Tax Credits Act 1999, we have also taken the opportunity to combine the relevant annual changes to the lax credits for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in a single instrument. This Government are promoting opportunity for all. They are not writing people off, but helping them to get on. Working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit are about making work pay, thus encouraging people to work rather than to rely on out-of-work benefits. And they are about helping families, including disabled people, out of poverty.
The order ensures that the differentials between in-work tax credits and out-of-work benefits are maintained and it provides extra help, over and above indexation, for young children. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  Liquor Licensing
  Liquor Licensing
  Arson Scoping Study
  Arson Scoping Study
  Juvenile Offenders: Custodial Arrangements
  Juvenile Offenders: Custodial Arrangements
  Legal Services Ombudsman Review
  Legal Services Ombudsman Review
  Malawi
  Malawi
  Health Spending
  Health Spending
  Menwith Hill: SBIRS
  Menwith Hill: SBIRS
  BMW and Rover
  BMW and Rover
  Ethnic Minorities: Treaty of Amsterdam
  Ethnic Minorities: Treaty of Amsterdam
  Millennium Volunteers
  Millennium Volunteers
  Quigley Report
  Quigley Report
  Dental Treatment: Deaths Associated with Anaesthesia
  Dental Treatment: Deaths Associated with Anaesthesia
  Prescribing Rights
  Prescribing Rights
  Scrapie
  Scrapie
  Welsh Beaches
  Welsh Beaches
  Northern Ireland and the Euro
  Northern Ireland and the Euro